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