Time: Wed Jul 30 17:59:53 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA21561;
	Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:53:00 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA11220;
	Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:50:40 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:49:55 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Howard Phillips' Interview on Michael Reagan Radio Show

>_____________________Begin Forwarded Message_____________________
>[Thanks to Jane Schmidt for making the transcription, and to Michael
> Reagan for letting us transcribe this from
> http://www.audionet.com/shows.reagan/9707/mr0723.ram -- AV]
>Howard Phillips' Interview on "The Michael Reagan Show"
>July 24, 1997
>Michael Reagan (MR): You might remember I got a call from a listener
>that said, "We need a party, the uh.. Constitutional Party?  And I
>said, "Yeah, well that might be a good idea, a party that would live by
>the Constitution of the United States."  And sometimes you do have a brain
>fade.  You forget there's operations out there that are already doing
>that, but again, I took the call.
>But when I got home, and I went to web forums, and started seeing some of
>my e-mail, people talking to me after the show.  One of the people sent a
>note to me and said, "Michael, you talked about, or that lady called about
>a Constitutional Party.  There already is one!  And Howard Phillips leads
>that: the U.S. Taxpayers Party.  Why don't you get Howard Phillips on?"
>For those of you who don't think I listen to my listeners and listen to my
>e-mailers, I bring you good friend, Howard Phillips.  Howard, how are you?
>Howard Phillips (HP): Mike, God bless you!  I'm very well.
>MR: You're back east?
>HP: Yes, I am.  And I'm sorry I can only be on for a little while
>tonight.  I know you offered me more time, but I had a prior
>	commitment.
>MR: I know.  You have to go to a play, or to something like that.  Listen,
>it's okay to have prior commitments with the family, and going to plays,
>and what have you. But, Howard, the reason I wanted to have you on,
>because here's what the person said, "The Constitutional Party already
>exists.  It IS the U.S. Taxpayers Party."
>HP: It is.  As a matter of fact, many people want us to change the name
>around the country to the Constitution Party.  Our affiliate in
>Pennsylvania, headed by Peg Luksik, is called the Constitutional Party. In
>California, we're the American Independent Party.  By the year 2000, I
>think we'll have one name across the country.
>But whatever the name is, we are committed to the proposition that the
>founding fathers were correct, that they gave us, by and large, an
>excellent document, and that the document is really the owner's manual for
>the federal government of the United States, and that if we want to put
>America back on the right track, we've got to cut the federal government
>down to constitutional size.  We've got to install in Congress, and at the
>White House, men and women who believe that the federal government has
>only those powers which were delegated to it, or added to the Constitution
>by amendment, and which are enumerated in the document itself.
>MR: So, let me ask you.  You've been watching these "goings on" back in
>Washington D.C. as all of us have.  And, I just want to ask you, I know
>what you think, but I want you to verbalize what you think.
>HP: Okay.  Well, I think the Republican Party has proven very
>Like you, I had at one point in my life, been a Republican.  In fact, I
>was chairman of the Republican Party in Boston, in '64, during the
>Goldwater years.  I was state chairman of the Young Republicans in my
>state, managed great many campaigns, and I had the great privilege of
>heading two federal agencies during the Nixon administration.
>But, my belief is that especially with the lack of consensus about the
>nature of external threats to the United States, the flaws in the
>Republican Party, the lines of fragmentation which have always existed,
>but which were papered over by a common concern for the national defense,
>a common opposition to communism, are now becoming ever more evident.
>The grass roots of the party is pro-life, it's pro-family, it's
>pro-limited government, it's against the New World Order, it's for the
>Constitution.  But all too often, the leadership of the party is
>ambivalent on those issues and winds up supporting the Democrats on every
>key issue.  Whether it's another $935 million for the U.N., or
>intervention in Bosnia, Most Favored Nation Status for Red China, the
>failure to continue the U.S. bases in Panama, a budget deal that increases
>taxes AND spending every year through the end of the budget deal in the
>year 2002.
>MR: Let me ask you a question.  You and I have talked about this.  There
>really are two Republican parties.
>HP: Sure there are.
>MR: There is one east of the Mississippi and one west of the Mississippi.
>HP: Yeah, the people who do the work and send those small contributions
>are people like you and me, Mike, who are reasonable people, we hope, but
>who feel the government is heading in the wrong direction, who know that
>we need a less intrusive government, and who'd like to see action to close
>down the federal role in education, to terminate the Legal Services
>Corporation, something your dad tried to do.
>MR: Okay. Good point!  My dad tried to do it. Of course, he only had the
>Senate on his team.  He didn't have the House on his team.  But let's say
>Howard Phillips runs again for President of the United States.  But let's
>say this time, Howard Phillips gets elected to the presidency.  You're now
>the President of the United States of America.  How in the world do you
>pass through the Congress of the United States, the Senate with the
>numbers that are there?  And even though the Republicans control the
>House and the Senate, there are not enough votes there to override a
>presidential veto, which is the problem they've got.  But let's just say
>you're President of the United States.  What do you do to get bills
>through, and stop the games that are played in the Senate, by the
>Democrats to hold up legislation?
>HP: Mike, the key to the U.S. Taxpayers Party's strategy, is that we don't
>have to get bills through.  Our point is that under the Constitution,
>there are only two ways in which the federal government can spend money:
>1) Congress passes an appropriation, the President signs it. 2) The
>President vetoes an appropriation and his veto is overridden.  If you have
>a veto sustained by 1/3 + 1, in either house of Congress, you can stop the
>money, whether it's to the IRS, the UN, the Department of Education, the
>National Endowment for the Arts.
>Now, you have to be prepared to govern confrontationally.  You have to be
>able to rally at least 1/3 of the American people to support that agenda;
>But we believe, that when we point out to people that if we cut out all of
>this unconstitutional spending, at the same time, we will eliminate the
>income tax, we'll privatize social security, eliminate the social security
>tax, eliminate capital gains tax, estate tax, inheritance tax, et cetera.
>I think people will realize that they're going to be a lot better off with
>less government and more of their own money left in their own pockets.
>MR: How would you say to the Republicans to overcome Bill Clinton and
>his popularity in the press, which he uses from his bully pulpit, to get
>the things that he wants out of the Republicans? How would you build a
>backbone for them?
>HP: Mike, I think the problem with the Republicans is that they have let
>Clinton set the agenda.  Really at root, they're ashamed of what they
>profess to believe. Whenever Clinton starts talking about their
>heartlessness, they retreat.  But, you know, you can reframe the debate.
>On the issue of socialized medicine, for example, the question is really a
>question of life and death.  Are we going to give the government control
>over the supply and content of medical care and let judges, beauracrats
>and politicians determine who will live and who will die at either end of
>the spectrum?  That is the bottom line.  But they've instead made it a
>question of whether you're taking money away from the elderly.
>In the area of education, they get involved in tangential battles, instead
>of saying, under the Constitution, there is no proper federal role in
>education. Education must be parentally accountable.  The first amendment
>says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
>or prohibiting the free excercise thereof."  That means that you don't
>fund any entity which propagates ideas.  All education is inescapably full
>of religious content - value content.  That's why it has to be local.
>That's why it has to be accountable to parents.
>MR: But what about the American people who have their hands out getting
>that money from the government of the United States?  How do you get them
>on your team when they've been getting those hand outs?
>HP: Well, the beauty of our electoral college system, is that we don't
>need 2/3 to win. We don't need 51% to win. We don't have a single national
>election for President. We have 51 separate elections: 1 in each of the 50
>states plus 1 in D.C.  And in each of those states, you can get all of the
>electoral votes, if you get a simple plurality of the popular vote.  I
>think we can elect a president, as the Republicans did, when they elected
>Abe Lincoln in 1860, with less than 40% of the popular vote.  Translate
>that into a majority of the electoral college, and then rally the tax
>payers so that they are no longer being constantly harassed by the tax
>MR: I know you've got to go.  How do you get in touch with the U.S.
>Taxpayers Party?
>HP: 1-800 the number 2 - VETO-IRS
>MR: 1-800 the number 2 - VETO-IRS Howard Phillips, have a good time. We'll
>talk to you soon, good friend!
>HP: God bless you Mike!
>MR: Take care. Howard Phillips, everybody, presidential candidate.  I'm
>Mike Reagan this is the Michael Reagan radio talk show.
>Ricardo Davis
>USTP List Moderator
>"The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take
>consistent ground in politics."  -- Charles G. Finney
>"If you will fear the LORD and serve Him, and listen to His voice and not
>rebel against the command of the LORD, then both you and also the king who
>reigns over you will follow the LORD your God."  (1 Samuel 12:14)

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