KEYES SAYS DEMOCRATS IN FOR ELECTION DAY SURPRISE

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS -- Speaking with the fervor of an evangelist at a tent revival, Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, made a campaign swing through Southern Illinois last week, marking his first visit to the area.

Keyes made appearances in Marion and Mount Vernon to rally downstate support in his race against Democratic candidate Barack Obama. During both stops Keyes said Democrats are in for a surprise on Nov. 2.

"I don't care what the pundits say. This state on election day is going to go Republican up and down the ticket," Keyes predicted.

Keyes joined the race in late July ending six difficult weeks for Republicans who were forced to replace Jack Ryan who left the race after embarrassing details of his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan was released in court records.

A former ambassador to the United Nations and two-time presidential candidate, Keyes entry into the race against Obama marked the first time in the nation's history that two black candidates have squared off as major party nominees in a U.S. Senate race. Adding even more flavor to the race is the fact that Keyes, a native of Maryland, has yet to establish a residence in Illinois a state where he has never lived.

Keyes has never held elected office. He twice ran for the U.S. Senate from Maryland in 1988 and 1992. He sought the Republican nomination to the presidency in 1996 and 2000. During the Reagan administration, he was an ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission.

During his whirlwind visit to Southern Illinois, Keyes took time out to grant a one-on-one interview to the Southern Illinoisan.

Question: There was much speculation about whether or not you would accept the Republican nomination. Was there one specific thing or a combination of things that prompted your decision to challenge Barack Obama?

Answer: "The thing that was most decisive about me accepting the nomination was when I learned about Barack Obama. What particularly caught my eye was the fact that he had opposed a bill called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The legislation is aimed at stopping a practice that is still being used at some hospitals in Illinois where if a baby is born alive during a botched abortion and that baby is there separate from the mother. They then take the baby and set it aside and just let it die, and that's a child; this is not longer the question of an abortion, this is the question of an infant baby, fully born, just like you and I and they just let it die. I think that is unconscionable and I find it completely unacceptable that a man (Obama) representing the Land of Lincoln, would oppose that bill. That's what led me seriously into looking into the idea of running.

"I think I had a moral obligation because I have fought for certain things all my life. I have challenged other people that when the crunch comes you have to lay it on the line and not sit on the sidelines and I challenged myself to do just that. I felt like I would never be able to look an audience in the face again if I shirked this responsibility."

Q: Has the fact that you are a Maryland resident and had previously never lived in Illinois been a campaign issue thus far? How do you address that when you're labeled as an "outsider" or a "carpet bagger?"

A: "I have to admit, I think it has been more of an issue with the media than with the people. It is a question that I continually encounter from the media and I don't recall that I have ever encountered it from an individual in Illinois. I think the people of Illinois are willing to judge me on who I am and what I can contribute and what I say instead of looking at extraneous things. I think the people of Illinois will look at me and what I have to offer rather than where I came from."

Q: One issue that is on the minds of all voters is jobs and here in Southern Illinois, where unemployment runs two and sometimes three times the national average, creating jobs is a high priority. Do you have a specific plan on how to create jobs?

A: I think the most important thing to remember is that government does not create jobs. You can't have jobs without businesses here. That's one of the things that I look at in my opponent's record, how he supported Gov. Blagojevich and all of the taxes, regulations and fees that are strangling and destroying the business environment in Illinois. And then he goes around talking about jobs. How are you going to keep jobs if you are killing businesses and how are you going to attract new businesses to Illinois if you won't address the problem of malpractice insurance rates that are driving doctors out of the state? How are you going to attract businesses to an area where there is not proper medical care? I think it is obvious that medical care, schools and things of that nature are a vital part of the business environment. When you take steps to hinder the business environment by putting fees and regulations on businesses then you're killing jobs. I think you have to create an environment that is friendly to businesses in order to create jobs."

Q: More and more Americans are losing health care coverage. Would you support a national health care plan?

A: "I don't believe in government-controlled health care and I think that what we need to look at is ways in which we can put the consumer in proper charge of their own health care plan so we can drive the cost down instead of up. Part of the problem with our present system, which I think has contributed to skyrocketing costs, is the fact that we have a third-party-payer system. You go home after you get the service and you don't even know what it costs. If we bought cars that way what do you think would happen to our car industry? We need to adopt plans, such as the one that President Bush is talking about, where people can set up medical savings accounts and combine that with catastrophic insurance that will guarantee them against the major liability and at the same time give them greater freedom, greater control and a greater reward when they are making good, effective judgments on how to get their health care.

"Secondly, we need to redefine what we are trying to pursue. I think the objective of the system should be health, not just health care and that means having learned the lessons we know about the importance of diets, exercise and fitness and including those in our concept of health care. We need to start putting together an approach that will be aiming to keep people healthy by using the knowledge we have about what needs to be done. A lot of the diseases that are now debilitating people, especially in the area of cardiovascular disease, studies show that these diseases could be eliminated if we simply look at diet and exercise."

Q: Horizon Natural Resources recently filed bankruptcy and as part of its reorganization plan was allowed to void a national United Mine Workers contract, which meant the loss of health care benefits for more than 3,000 workers, some that had spent 40 years in the coal industry. As a U.S. Senator would you support legislation that would change bankruptcy laws that would prevent companies from walking away from benefits that were gained through a collective bargaining agreement?

A: "Absolutely yes. I have heard about this and think it is totally unfair. Instead of putting workers, who have invested a good part of their lives in that work, at the end of the line they should be taken care of first. You have to make sure that they are an essential component and that the contribution they have made is respected."

Q: You recently made a statement that raised a few eyebrows when you said that Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama. Clarify that statement and explain exactly the context in which it was made.

A: "I actually think that statement is a self-evident truth that Christ could not vote for Barack Obama. And it has to do with the issue I stated earlier that caught my attention about Barack Obama who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He has cast a vote three times to allow a practice to go on that allows infant babies, fully born and with no dispute over their humanity or anything else, to be set aside like garbage to die. The simple question I have to ask myself as a person of Christian conscience, and a question that all voters who profess a Christian conscience have to ask is 'would Christ do that?' Would Christ stand aside so that a baby could die like garbage? We know he wouldn't because Christ put special emphasis on the children and spent some of his harshest language about people that would harm children and he was also very clear about his own deep concern for helpless children.

"So there is no way, no way that that kind of decision would have been made by Christ nor could it represent a person of Christian conscience. And when we choose people for the U.S. Senate we're choosing our representatives and therefore it makes no sense to elect somebody that is going to be engaging in actions and behavior that are inconsistent with our most fundamental values of conscience. Barack Obama has said he is in line 100 percent with the agenda for gay rights, he said he would vote to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which is aimed at making sure that gay marriage is forced upon all the states in this union. Those views are also inconsistent with the Christian conscience. When you examine it in terms of these issues of moral concern it is quite clear that people of Christian beliefs should ask themselves what Jesus would do. Once again, it's self evident that Christ would not support the kinds of things that Barack Obama stands for."

Q: When talking about Southern Illinois jobs, the state has more than double the coal reserves as any two other states combined, yet the coal industry continues to decline each year. Will you actively seek ways to burn high sulfur Illinois coal?

A: "I certainly will, I think we need to apply the tremendous skills and technology that we have in America to make sure we can exploit the natural resources that we have. This is not just a matter of economics, look at the world today. We are fighting a war on terrorism and many of these terrorists are being funded by money that is flowing out of the Middle East because of the tremendous dependence of the world on that source of energy. We need to develop alternative sources of energy and we need to start exploiting the resources we have in this country to reduce our dependency on oil that is putting these kinds of resources in the very hands of the very people that are trying to kill us. It's a matter of economics and also a matter of national security that we start finding ways to use our existing energy resources."

A: "I'm a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. I think that it makes no sense and I have never understood the mentality that says you deal with problems of violence involving guns by restricting law abiding citizens in terms of their Second Amendment rights. So, you pass a law and of course the law abiding citizens are going to obey the law and the criminal, somebody that does not obey the law, is going to be the only person to end up with guns. The whole gun control mentality is absurd and makes no sense to me. We should be particularly harsh on those that abuse their Second Amendment rights in order to commit crimes and do violence but we should not be passing laws undermining the constitutional right of law abiding citizens."

Q: Many people feel the war on terrorism is the central issue in the upcoming presidential election. Where do you stand on that and also was the war in Iraq the right thing to do?

A: "Some people say that the war on terror is an issue and I say, 'what issue?' We have people wanting to kill us, this is not an abstraction, it is not a joke and if we don't defend ourselves against them they will kill us in gruesome ways like we saw in Russia. This is not an issue, this is not an option it is a reality and we either deal with it or we die. What do you do about the war on terror is like asking do you want to die. No we don't, therefore we must defend ourselves against this threat, and we have no option and no choice. The issue is how are we going to fight it most effectively, how are we going to make sure we go after the terrorists and pre-empt their violence and destroy them before they destroy us.

"I think we have to destroy their infrastructure and topple the governments that are willing to aid and abet them and possibly give them weapons of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. That's what President Bush did and that's what he did in Iraq. Based on the information he had, if he would have acted any other way he would have been irresponsible. I would rather have a President that is able to make a tough decision based on the information he's got to go into Iraq and do what's necessary to prevent weapons of mass destruction that could kill 100,000 people in Chicago than to have somebody that is weighing things out and waiting for the wisdom of hindsight to defend our people. The wisdom of hindsight will leave hundreds of thousands of people dead. The wisdom of hindsight arrives too late to make the decision and that's why I think John Kerry is unfit to be president. He is clearly somebody that would rely on the wisdom of hindsight and that would get us all killed."

Q: In the past you have said you would like to eliminate income taxes in favor of a national sales tax. Is that still your stand?

A: "I think the oppressive burden of taxation is a discouragement to productivity and job creation and so I've never seen a tax increase that I liked. I'm an opponent of federal income tax. I think it's a system that heavily damages our economic prospects by taking control and the resources out of the hands of people. I want to see it abolished and replaced with a national sales tax, a system that leaves the control of all our earnings in our own hands until we decide how to save it, how to invest it and how to spend it. Instead of taxing our productivity it will only tax us when we are in the public market place."

A: "I have often said that as originally conceived affirmative action is something that I support, but I am against quotas. I am against the idea that you should be deciding on the basis of race what positions people should have in the workplace. The original idea was to compensate for past injustices you were going to help people get to the starting line, not determine the outcome of the race."

Q: Gay rights, gay marriage and civil unions for gays has been a much debated topic in recent months. What is your position?

A: "I think it is quite clear that we must first think about what marriage is all about and why it is that certain kinds of support, privileges and other things are attached to marriage. It's really because the heart of marriage is pro-creation, that is to say child bearing and child rearing. There are certain kinds of privileges that are afforded to the family and it's for the sake of making sure that that functions which provides for the future of society. The family is the basis for the future which composes society. You should not be afforded privileges that arise out of the function of the family for those that cannot pro-create. It doesn't make any sense to me because they do not exist for the selfish interests of the parties involved in a marriage; they exist for the sake of the function that the marriage-based family performs for society. For those that are simply engaging in relations that are for their own purposes, society really doesn't have an interest in it and therefore shouldn't be called upon to be affording the benefits and privileges that go along with marriage."

Q: You recently rattled some members of your own party when you called Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, "a hedonist" and added that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." Have you backed off of those comments at all or is that still your stand?

A: "I want to explain that. I never called Mary Cheney anything. That never happened. What happened was, I was asked a question about gay marriage and gave pretty much the same answer I just gave you. In order to understand the point you have to look at gay sexual relations and what they are about. When two people of the same sex are engaging in these activities they are doing it for the sake of their own satisfaction, there is nothing else involved in it. It is a self regarding action and it involves the use of the pro-creation organs for the purpose of pleasure only, there is nothing else involved. That means it is selfish because it looks at the action only in terms of what you as an individual involved in it gets out of it. It is hedonistic, which simply means pursuing pleasure. So gay sexual relations are about self regarding or selfish pleasure seeking, that's an objective analysis it is not a derogatory remark it's just a description of what is going on. I was talking about how that is not a basis for marriage which is about procreation in principle.

"To say that you can have for the basis for a marriage, a pleasure-seeking relationship does not make any sense. I made that argument which I think is perfectly clear and perfectly logical and I was then asked if I would apply that description to Mary Cheney. I said as far as she is a lesbian and engaged in that type of relationship; by definition she would fall into that category. What am I supposed to say? Well, no because she is a Republican and the daughter of the vice president, out of respect I will exempt her from the truth. That makes no sense.

That would seem as if the Republicans are trying to have a plank in our platform that applies to everybody but us. The plank in the platform applies to everybody because it is good for society to respect the real meaning of marriage. That's all I said, so it was not intended in any way to be derogatory to anyone and as a result I don't have anything to apologize for. I was just trying to give a truthful, intelligent justification for the Republican plank and for the stand the president takes by the way."

Q: You have stated that you believe African-Americans should be exempted from federal taxes as reparation for slavery? Can you explain how that plan would work?

A: "It was actually not intended to address the challenge of true reparations because a lot of time the liberals and the leftists have tried to use the issue of reparations as extortion to try to get money claiming that it would pay for the injustice of slavery. The injustice of slavery was paid for during the Civil War not only in money but also in blood. It wasn't to pay for injustice it was that material damage was done and throughout history there has been the recognition that something had to be done to help to deal with that damage so the community of people who were slaves, ex-slaves or descendants of slaves could get back on their feet. I think we would be better to look at the old Roman Empire as an example. When a community had been damaged, either by neglect of the government or other means, the taxes would be omitted for a number of years while the community got back on its feet. What I suggested is that for a generation black folks would not pay any federal taxes, which would mean that they would get more control over income they are already earning. The wealthy people would be able to reinvest this money into the development of the community where they lived. There would be a more attractive labor pool because you could pay somebody the net and they would still be living at the same level as other workers. This would create a dynamic engine of employment, of investment and there would be no need for a government bureaucracy and the government wouldn't be taking money directly out of anybody's pocket. As an ulterior motive, when the people of the whole country saw the tremendous dynamic economic response that would happen in the community of people of slave heritage they would join me and others in calling for a repeal of income tax."

Q: In your travels across the state what have you found to be the concerns of voters in Illinois?

A: "If I could put a name to it, and it encompasses several things, I believe the name I would put to it would be corruption. But, I don't mean that in a narrow sense of just corruption of bureaucrats and politicians on the take. There is a corruption of moral values, a corruption that is threatening the family life and corruption in a general way of the moral of our liberty. I think that is of great concern over that kind of corruption in all different aspects of our lives. I also think there is a great thirst for integrity."

A: "I think the major one is that I deeply care for and respect the founding moral principles of America, the ones that were stated in the Declaration of Independence and I think have to be observed in the way we carry out our lives, including of course the principle that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator, not by human choice, of our rights. That entails a respect for the existence and the authority of God that I think is fundamental to all American life. I also think there is a fundamental difference in our attitude toward government. I think that America is not about good government it's about self government. And that means that we want to achieve good results but we want to do it in a way that respects the enterprise and initiative and responsibility of our people. We don't want to build up a big domineering government on the excuse that we're trying to do good for people. I think there is also a big difference in experience, I have a lot of experience in international affairs and I would enter the U.S. Senate as somebody that is already known and who is often listened to by a lot of the people who are there already. In that sense, even though I would be a newcomer I would already be in a leadership position especially on issues of moral concern and on international issues and trade. During the course of years I have built a good reputation and I think that experience will have a great deal of difference in terms of my effectiveness on behalf of the people of Illinois."

Q: If Southern Illinois residents asked collectively, 'why should I vote for Alan Keyes?' How would you respond?

A: "You should vote for me because you believe in the things that I believe in and you want to meet the moral crisis this country is facing head-on and with integrity. If that's who you are then I think you should vote your beliefs and your faith."

Q: Many people feel the war on terrorism is the central issue in the upcoming presidential election. Where do you stand on that and also was the war in Iraq the right thing to do?
A: "Some people say that the war on terror is an issue and I say, 'what issue?' We have people wanting to kill us, this is not an abstraction, it is not a joke and if we don't defend ourselves against them they will kill us in gruesome ways like we saw in Russia. This is not an issue, this is not an option it is a reality and we either deal with it or we die. What do you do about the war on terror is like asking do you want to die. No we don't, therefore we must defend ourselves against this threat, and we have no option and no choice. The issue is how are we going to fight it most effectively, how are we going to make sure we go after the terrorists and pre-empt their violence and destroy them before they destroy us.

Everytime I listen to Keyes I am reminded of what the conservative basics are. Regardless of the non-pc things he says, he is the most straight shooting, articulate conservative I know. He has taken on a huge challenge and if he does nothing more than get people to thinking differently about the role of government in their lives, the campaign will be useful.

Q: You recently rattled some members of your own party when you called Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, "a hedonist" and added that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." Have you backed off of those comments at all or is that still your stand?
A: I want to explain that. I never called Mary Cheney anything. That never happened. What happened was, I was asked a question about gay marriage and gave pretty much the same answer I just gave you...
To say that you can have for the basis for a marriage, a pleasure-seeking relationship does not make any sense. I made that argument which I think is perfectly clear and perfectly logical and I was then asked if I would apply that description to Mary Cheney. I said as far as she is a lesbian and engaged in that type of relationship; by definition she would fall into that category. What am I supposed to say? Well, no because she is a Republican and the daughter of the vice president, out of respect I will exempt her from the truth. That makes no sense.

So much for the claim Keyes "attacked" the veep's daughter at the convention. Another media myth.

Go Keyes!

Something occurred to me while reading this that I've not heard pointed out before. I may have missed it but I want to get it out there for consumption in case it hasn't.

Often, when the "reparations" issue comes up, an opponent of the idea comes back with "So you want Oprah and Michael Jordan and other rich blacks not to have to pay taxes?"

It occurs to me that this is actually NOT what's implied by Keyes' statements on the matter.

He says that he wants to do this in order to repair economic damage done to slave descendent's, and do it for a generation (or two) in order to fuel economic achievement among the target group.

Well, the fact is that those of a certain age - at least 40 if not younger, HAVE achieved the most of what they are going to. the wealth accumulation of Oprah Winfrey has occurred for years and is an ongoing thing as is the contribution to the economy which arises from that process. Same with Jordan and others. There is no need to advance THEIR economic state, and little long term gain for - at this late date - trying to advance the economic state of less wealthy blacks.

No, it seems to me that if such a plan were properly applied, it would have a specific definition of what constituted a "generation."

Perhaps everyone 25 and under down to those born within one year from the effective date of the legislation. Few of that generation are so wealthy as to defy the logic of the plan, and they are the people who will have it in their power to pursue the sort of education and/or diligence to make a real economic difference in their lives and communities.

Does this not seem logical?

Q: In the past you have said you would like to eliminate income taxes in favor of a national sales tax. Is that still your stand?
A: "I think the oppressive burden of taxation is a discouragement to productivity and job creation and so I've never seen a tax increase that I liked. I'm an opponent of federal income tax. I think it's a system that heavily damages our economic prospects by taking control and the resources out of the hands of people. I want to see it abolished and replaced with a national sales tax, a system that leaves the control of all our earnings in our own hands until we decide how to save it, how to invest it and how to spend it. Instead of taxing our productivity it will only tax us when we are in the public market place."

Abolish the 16th Amendment ping.

Regardless of the non-pc things he says, he is the most straight shooting, articulate conservative I know. He has taken on a huge challenge and if he does nothing more than get people to thinking differently about the role of government in their lives, the campaign will be useful.

Which goes to show, it takes more than articulation and strait shooting to be voted into a position of power in the Government.

In terms of liberty, privacy and prosperity, the elimination of the income tax and the implementation of the FairTax is without a doubt the best possible thing we can do for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.

I for one am grateful to Alan Keyes for helping keep this critical issue at the forefront for the last decade.

More and more Americans are waking up to what needs to be done, thanks in part to his leadership.

I actually think that statement is a self-evident truth that Christ could not vote for Barack Obama. And it has to do with the issue I stated earlier that caught my attention about Barack Obama who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Why do people find this so difficult? Perhaps it's because they're uncomfortable with the idea of submitting to an authority greater than themselves. But Jesus is the Truth. What other authority should we serve?

As I said to sink above, I'm speaking within the parameters of the proposal only to the charge that it's not right to exempt rich blacks. I'm not defending every aspect ofthe proposal.

The reason for the choice of 25 (which is admitedly arbitrary and could easily be 21 or 18) is to pick a point at which the vast majority of those falling under the plan would not yet have begun the process of wealth building and would still be young enough to potentially make life-decisions differently based on the exemption.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.