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) <snip> > >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 >husband.'" > >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 >children. > >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 >right. > >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 >him. > >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 >me. > >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 >saw. > >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