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
(fwd)
<snip>
>
>_____________________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
>disappointing.
>
>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
>users.
>
>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
>mailto:ricardo@ustaxpayers.org
>http://www.ustaxpayers.org/
>
>"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)
>
<snip>
========================================================================
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