Time: Sat Jul 26 09:06:48 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA14145;
	Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:05:19 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15891;
	Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:03:08 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:02:34 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Keyes, July 22, Segments 3-5 (fwd)

>The Alan Keyes Show
>July 22, 1997
>Hour 1: Segments 3-5
>Hour 1: Segment 3
>The hearings continue on the John Huang episode.
>And one of the things that I have found most
>ironic, throughout this process, is that Mr. Huang
>is invoking the 5th Amendment in his refusal to
>come forward.  His wife has now joined him.  "The
>wife of former Democratic fundraiser John Huang is
>joining her husband in invoking her 5th Amendment
>right to refuse to answer questions from Senate
>investigators.  Jane Huang, who had originally
>agreed to be questioned by investigators,
>cancelled a scheduled deposition last week with
>the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, said
>her Los Angeles attorney, Richard Marmaro.  'She
>has always indicated a willingness to cooperate,
>but she has become disillusioned with the process
>because of the way the press has mishandled her
>See, I find this amazing.  That the press,
>so-called, is handling or mishandling things, and
>therefore these people are not going to cooperate
>with the representatives of the American people?
>This is real patriotism, isn't it?  It's also the
>action of people who are guilty of nothing.  These
>folks couldn't have done anything wrong; John
>Huang can't be guilty of anything wrong; that's
>why he has to take the 5th.  Because, of course,
>if you're not guilty of anything, you have to
>worry a lot about whether your testimony will
>incriminate you.  (laughs)
>This is one of the points that has been made by
>one or two of the people on the Senate panel
>itself, and I think it's an excellent and truthful
>point.  If this guy has nothing to hide, if he's
>such a wonderful patriot, then why is he skulking
>in the shadows and not coming forward to share the
>truth with the American people?  It would seem
>pretty obvious that if he really has the interests
>of the country at heart, then he would want that
>truth to get out.  If these suspicious appearances
>have nothing to them, if his relationship with the
>Riadys was all innocent, then he'd be anxious and
>eager to come forward, and try to clarify the
>situation.  But instead of that, we not only have
>him skulking in the shadows, we have his wife
>joining him in invoking the 5th Amendment:  all
>signs that there's nothing to all of this, just as
>the degenerate media says.  You see, because if
>there were something to it, then John Huang
>wouldn't be claiming the 5th Amendment.  That
>makes perfect sense, doesn't it?  (laughs)  Sure.
>Caller:  Disney's no longer with us.  I'm sure if
>Disney was here, we wouldn't have this situation
>in the corporation that we have now.
>Keyes:  You mean Walt Disney.  I certainly think,
>based on his life and record, that what you're
>saying is absolutely correct.  He seemed to be a
>man who had a great deal of respect, especially
>for the impact that his work was having on
>Caller:  That is correct, and that's the way I
>feel.  And I feel they took the good thing and
>distorted it, and this is the way Satan gets his
>handhold:  takes something that we know is just
>and distorts it.
>Keyes:  I think it's all-important, though, once
>you realize what's going on, not to be taken in by
>it any more.  And that's why I think it's such a
>service to everyone, what the American Family
>Association, the Southern Baptists and others have
>done to call attention to what the Disney
>Corporation has become.  Because we need to get
>that word out far and wide, so that they can't
>take advantage of people any more.  Absolutely
>Hour 1: Segment 4
>Caller:  All the hubbub in the press lately about
>Newt Gingrich and his speakership being in danger
>with Tom DeLay and Dick Armey:  it seems to me
>that it's exaggerated, and I was wondering about
>your thoughts on that.
>Keyes:  Why do you think it's exaggerated?
>Caller:  Anything he does they . . . .
>Keyes:  They kind of blow it up.
>Caller:  Yeah
>Keyes:  Well, it is true, especially if it has
>negative impact, that that has been the tendency.
>And of course it's been something that the
>Democratic leadership and Clinton and these people
>have played with; they really beat him and beat
>But I think they now have Newt exactly where they
>want him.  They emasculated him; they gutted his
>commitment; they have essentially put him in a
>position, apparently, where he is so damaged that
>he is now being propped up by his opposition.  And
>from the point of view of the Republican Party, I
>have to say, I think that's a lousy position to be
>in:  to have your key spokesman somebody whose
>fortunes now depend on whether his opposition
>treats him well.  That's the worst situation you
>can be in.
>And I do not think, by the way, that in terms of
>the actual nature of this latest episode, that . .
>. because it wasn't exactly the press that
>produced this story.  This wasn't a
>media-generated kind of phenomenon.  Things were
>going on within the Republican councils, and I
>think that, all things being equal, they would
>have much preferred that nobody paid any
>attention, because of the dissension that was
>involved.  When you have the key leaders in the
>Congress putting themselves in a position where
>they're maneuvering against the Speaker -- that's
>pretty big news; the press doesn't have to make
>that up.  And my impression, as I talk to people
>around here -- because I live in the Washington
>area -- is that there was fire to this smoke, and
>there still is.  I mean, I don't think that Newt
>Gingrich is by any means secure.
>Caller:  Was it any more than just a discussion as
>to whether we needed a new leader, a new Speaker?
>Keyes:  No, no, no.  There were folks who wanted
>to push him out; there still are.  There are
>people who sincerely believe that he is such
>damaged goods that the Republicans can't do
>anything as long as he's Speaker.  There are also
>people who are extremely upset with the way in
>which the Republican leadership has pretty much
>collapsed on issues of importance to Republicans.
>They're not doing a very good job right now.
>They're not doing a very good job at handling the
>Democrats.  They're not doing a very good job at
>handling Bill Clinton.  In many ways they're being
>taken to the cleaners, and I think that, yeah,
>this has led to some unhappiness amongst some of
>the rank and file.  And that unhappiness,
>apparently, was such that amongst the leadership
>there was kind of a temptation, if you like, to
>respond to it.  The extent of that is what is now
>being debated, right?  Because you have them
>publicly denying:  "Oh, I didn't associate with
>that.  I didn't do this; I didn't do that."  Well,
>from what I understand, a couple of them went
>pretty far; yes they did.
>So I don't think that you can blame this one on
>the media.  As a matter of fact, I don't think you
>can, right now, blame the problems of the
>Republican leadership on the media.  The
>Degenerate Propaganda Media is what is it; it does
>what it does.  Those of us who have conservative
>views know this, and we have to deal with it.  But
>the Republican leaders, I think, have been
>shooting themselves in the foot, stabbing
>themselves in the gut, and then, in the course of
>the last week, apparently making a good attempt at
>decapitating themselves.  This is not something
>the DPM can do for them.
>Caller:   Do you think that they should they be
>more pragmatic?  Didn't they pass everything they
>wanted, but they just face the veto pen of
>President Clinton?
>Keyes:  No, they have passed nothing; they have
>fought for nothing.  They haven't even tried to
>pass anything worthwhile, in my opinion.  And as a
>result, Clinton, since 1996, has gotten a free
>ride from these people.  There is not a single
>issue they'll be able to point to in 1998 where
>they tried and he vetoed.  Don't you realize that
>he hasn't HAD to exercise his veto.  Cite one for
>They won't even send him the partial-birth
>abortion ban, which has passed both the Senate and
>the House.  They won't even send it to him.  And
>as a result, he won't even have to veto that.
>Think about that.
>Caller:  Will he have to veto the NEA funding?
>Keyes:  They're not going to get that to him.  The
>Senate isn't going to pass it.  The Senate people,
>including D'Amato and a bunch of others, are now
>talking like the greatest friends the NEA ever
>Clinton isn't going to be put on the spot with
>these issues.  The Republicans have basically lost
>their guts.  And as a result, they're not standing
>up to this president; they're not sending him any
>of the legislation that should be on their agenda,
>and therefore he doesn't have to veto it.
>Caller:  What do they need, then?
>Keyes:  They need leadership.  They need courage.
>They need a sense of belief that they are there to
>serve the people, and to serve the things that
>will restore both the moral principles and the
>practical basis of self-government in this
>country.  They need a real commitment to that.
>Instead, what I see is people who are only worried
>about one thing:  "Where do we stand in the polls
>today?  What did the focus groups say?  Oh, I'm so
>afraid that the Washington Post is gonna criticize
>me tomorrow."  This is the wrong mind.  And this
>has been their mindset since 1996, from everything
>that one can see.
>So right now, I'm squarely in the mode of
>believing that the best thing we can tell them is
>that they should stop blaming the media and
>everybody else, and look to their own actions, and
>examine them, and correct them, so that they can
>come out of this in time to salvage something in
>1998.  Because right now I think they're headed
>toward an incredible defeat.
>And I wouldn't want anybody to think, especially
>with that last observation, that I'm saying that
>with any kind of satisfaction at all, because I am
>not.  I think that the historic opportunity that
>developed in this country in the course of the
>last twenty years, starting with Ronald Reagan's
>election - I watched with great dismay as George
>Bush came in, and threw away - from the executive
>branch point of view - threw away much of that
>opportunity.  And then having reconstituted with a
>great victory in 1994 in the Congress, I'm sitting
>here watching now as the Republican leadership in
>the Congress throws it away.  All because they
>give in to the degenerate propaganda media's
>editorializing, and their verbiage, pushing them
>further and further away from the conservative
>principles they ought to be serving.
>Hour 1: Segment 5
>The last caller raised a very good point, that I
>think is on the minds of many people as they watch
>what's going on with the Republican leadership,
>trying to figure out how much of it is due to
>media distortion, which we know is there and
>frequent, how much of it is reality.  I've got to
>tell you, though - and I'm saying this not just on
>the basis of performances like this internecine
>battle that was going on, and the bad impression I
>think that creates in the public mind, but in
>terms of substance - right now, if you think that
>things are bad with respect to the Republican
>leadership, I have news for you:  they're worse
>than you think.
>And in the course of the next hour, I'm gonna have
>a guest on, Steven Moore from the CATO Institute,
>who's written an excellent article today that
>shows, chapter and verse, how much worse the
>Republican abandonment of fiscal responsibility
>has been than it appears.  And he goes in to the
>facts and figures that show that the Republicans,
>since 1996, have been acting as bad or worse than
>the spendthrift Democrat Congresses they were
>elected to replace.  Think about that.
>So, this isn't some media generated thing.
>They've got a problem, because they're not doing
>what they're supposed to do.  That's the truth of
>it.  They'd have much less of a problem, if they
>had stuck to their guns and were following the
>agenda that they promised the American people they
>would pursue.  That is my opinion, but I also
>believe it's buttressed by the facts.

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail