Ambassador Alan Keyes

We’d like to welcome former US Ambassador and current Republican Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes into the Popzara hot seat. A man of many talents, the out-spoken author and social commentator is highly regarded for his powerfully eloquent and fiery orations that have been known to reduce his opponents to tears.

But we're not afraid, as the notion of engaging the man former President Ronald Reagan once hailed a "stout-hearted defender of a strong America" on a variety of topics, including his 2004 Senate race against Barack Obama, the state of conservatism in the Republican Party, as well as the current race for the White House.

Ambassador, it’s a pleasure to have you with us today. Jumping right in, it’s been suggested that candidates from both parties have seen their campaigns marginalized by mainstream media coverage, often relying on the growing influence of the internet to compete alongside their media-approved peers. Fox News in particular was heavily criticized for excluding fellow Republican candidate Ron Paul from their New Hampshire debate.

On the Republican side, we’ve seen the downfall of more popular candidates once thought inevitable by many, as well as the success of traditionally second-tier candidates. Do you think this points to the natural evolution of the nominating process?

This is not a naturally evolving nominating process, but a manipulated sham, especially on the Republican side. The Republican leadership has lost the trust of the party’s grassroots base. They failed to keep their promises of fiscal responsibility and budget restraint. They betrayed the sovereignty of the American people by failing to maintain control of the borders of the United States. In order to deal with the tide of illegal immigration produced by their laxity they then proposed to license a demographic invasion of the United States in order to provide low cost labor to benefit the money interests that finance their political ambitions.

None of the candidates offered in this election cycle represent the consistent, principled and coherent conservatism that drew many people to the Republican party during the Reagan era. Giuliani represented the abandonment of the party’s reliance on American moral principle; Romney represents a blatant attempt to deceive moral conservatives into supporting someone whose entire political career has been dedicated to the promotion of the same morally repugnant positions espoused by Clinton, Obama and the Democrats in general. John McCain is a proven enemy of the grassroots political action that has been the mainstay of conservatism for several decades. He has also been a key figure in the effort to betray the sovereignty of the people on the border and immigration issues. Mike Huckabee’s record as governor shows him to be a government expanding, free spending advocate of big government approaches in every area. He also supported the betrayal of the sovereignty of the people when it comes to border security and immigration. Ron Paul preaches the abandonment of Ronald Reagan’s commitment to America’s leadership role in the world, a position that is both dangerous and morally irresponsible.

Each of these candidates represents the abandonment of a key element of conservative principle or policy that is vital to America’s strength and the survival of constitutional liberty. My voice is being carefully stifled in order to prevent grassroots Republicans from realizing that there is a complete, consistent conservative choice available, one truly committed to the things they believe (not fabricating positions that contradict all their past actions just to win votes.)

Not to suggest the blame lay entirely with the media, as we’ve seen efforts to exclude candidates from the political debate directed by the parties themselves. Have you personally experienced or even witnessed such actions to yourself or a fellow candidate?

Certainly, for the reasons made clear in the answer above.

You run an unsuccessful campaign in 2004 against Illinois Senator Barack Obama, whom like yourself is now seeking the Presidency. But in fairness your candidacy seemed doomed from the start, given that you were drafted into the position (replacing disgraced nominee Jack Ryan) with only 86 days before the election.

I’m curious how your selection came about?

Pro-life forces in the Illinois Republican party were dismayed at the prospect of a pro-abortion Republican nominee against Obama. This would have meant that his defense of infanticide would have gone unchallenged during the campaign. (Obama opposed an effort to end the murder in Illinois hospitals of children born alive after a failed abortion attempt. These fully born, indisputably human children were being wrapped in soiled linens and left to die, a process that sometimes took hours. Though a bi-partisan coalition supported legislation to end this criminal and heinous practice, Obama opposed and thwarted the effort, on the grounds that once the mother has chosen abortion, the child must be done to death no matter what. He also maintained that no constitutional or moral principle protects the life of such children.)

Though I was initially reluctant to get involved in the race, I felt obliged to do so once this evil stand was made clear to me. Everyone assured me that I had no chance of victory, but I stand for the view that truth always deserves an advocate so that people of conscience have a decent alternative.

The recent primary in South Carolina saw the Democratic Party nearly polarized on the issue of race, with accusations of the Clinton family deliberately rallying the white constituency in the predominantly black-dominated electorate of the state, and further typecasting Barack Obama as the “black movement” candidate. What’s your thoughts regarding the whole matter, and how might this reflect on race politics in the 2008 general election?

It is simply racist to judge for or against a candidate based on physical characteristics. Black Americans who vote for someone on that basis are as racist as whites who do the opposite. The media perpetuates racist thinking, however, by suggesting that Obama’s candidacy represents something especially historic in terms of America’s past history of racism. Obama does not share the same ethnic background as most Black Americans. He is not the descendant of enslaved ancestors. He does not share the identity forged by the struggle against slavery and subsequent discrimination. His position on abortion and infanticide identify him with those who reject the great moral principle (“all men are created equal”) used to rouse America’s conscience against these evils. In fact his embrace of the view that inferior physical characteristics justify extreme discrimination against children in the womb identifies him with the doctrine of inequality and discrimination that was used by proponents of slavery to defend its existence.

After your defeat you refusal to congratulate Obama drew criticism by many, including some of your supporters. I was curious if you could explain your decision?

I could no more congratulate Obama than I would have congratulated an advocate of slavery for successfully achieving a position that helped to defend that evil. In principle, abortion and slavery are twin deformations of America’s soul. Both represent the abandonment of the moral principle that makes our civil polity possible. The pretense of civility cannot change that fact.

During that same campaign you suggested an alternative solution to the continuing debate on reparations for slavery in the United States. From what I understand, this proposal would involve the exemption of some ancestors of slavery from having to pay certain taxes for a specified amount of time. To some conservatives, this might appear to deviate from several core conservative values. Could you explain?

I simply suggested that eliminating the federal tax burden for a time would have been preferable to socialist welfare programs as a way to address the wounds left by historical injustice. This in fact is entirely consistent with conservative policy principle. I also suggested that the good economic effects it produced for black Americans would help demonstrate the wisdom of abolishing the income tax and replacing it with the FAIR tax, a position I have long advocated.

Is George W. Bush a true conservative?

No.

The Republican candidates, yourself included, each seem determined to portray themselves as the most traditionally conservative in the pack. However, the results of the early primaries would suggest a growing rally around Arizona Senator John McCain, with most exit polls showing him to be the clear choice with both independents and moderates voters.

Can a traditionally conservative candidate win the Presidency in 2008, and more to that remain a viable political philosophy in the future?

The results produced by the current corrupt and manipulated electoral process tell us nothing about the present or the future except that the American people are being done out of their system of constitutional self-government.

In the likelihood that you fail to grab the Republican nomination, could you see yourself supporting whomever the GOP candidate ends up being?

My first allegiance is to God and my country, not to a political party. I will do what I believe is consistent with that allegiance.

With the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates amidst a growing concern that the US economy may be headed towards recession, do you feel that the government has taken the appropriate steps to stave off what many feel to be the inevitable?

Also, I’m curious about your thoughts on the plan recent economic stimulus package to distribute rebate checks to a portion of Americans? Is this more than a symbolic gesture?

Unscrupulous politicians spend us into trouble to serve their political ambition, and then dole out minor tax cuts, also to serve their political ambition. The best way to assure energy and prosperity for our economy is to return control of their money to the people who earn it. We should abolish the federal income tax and replace it with the FAIR tax.

As you’re well aware, faith plays an important part in the lives of many Americans, and you’ve made it clear of its role in yours. Should a person’s personal beliefs and sources of inspiration affect their role in both government and policy, and for that matter should there be an expectation for politicians to secularize themselves upon election?

My political stands and actions are not based just on my personal faith, but on a conscientious effort to think through and apply the moral premises of America’s constitutional liberty. I often refer to the need to restore our respect for the authority of God because the Founding Document of our liberty (The Declaration of Independence) ascribes our rights to the authority of God. The key issue for our politics is not the personal beliefs of politicians, but the consistency of our policies and actions with the national beliefs that make our sovereignty as a people possible.

One final question Ambassador and that is how would a Keyes administration conclude the war in Iraq? What would it take to win this war on terrorism?

The focus on bringing our troops home is a symptom of the Bush administration’s failure to articulate rightly the reason for their presence in the Middle East. Terrorism must be fought on its home ground, preemptively. We need a presence on the ground in the Middle East so we can do so effectively. If we bring the troops home prematurely, we will simply bring the war home, inviting new and probably more deadly instances of attacks like the ones that occurred on 9/11. When people ask me how long we’ll have to go on fighting terrorism, I answer with a question “How long will you go on flossing your teeth?” (Answer: As long as you want to keep them. Where terrorism is concerned, the answer involves survival.)

Ambassador Keyes, we’d like to thank you again for taking some time to chat with us, and we wish you the best of luck on the campaign trail. This is the part we usually reserve to let our guests give us the last word, and we’re certainly not going to break with tradition here. Before we close shop, any final thoughts on the current Presidential race as we head towards Super Tuesday and beyond?

Take it away!

On all fronts the sovereignty of the American people is under mortal assault. Our elites have already abandoned it, as their failure to maintain control of our physical borders makes clear. The principle of moral equality from which we derive our claim to unalienable rights has also been abandoned, along with the control of our earned resources and our political choices. We need leadership that represents our will to restore the moral basis of our sovereignty, the physical control of our borders, and the control of our economic resources and political rights.

Alan Keyes is the only Republican candidate whose record matches his words of commitment in these vital areas. I am also the only candidate with both the experience and the will to maintain our role of leadership on behalf of liberty in the world, while refusing to sacrifice our sovereignty to any form of political globalism.

For more information on Alan Keyes, please check out his official website at http://www.alankeyes.com