Presidential Campaign and Candidates


Alan Keyes for President 1996 Campaign Brochure

Alan Keyes for President 1996 Campaign Brochure

‘Alan Keyes...the man meeting America’s moral challenge’


“I truly believe that your support for my candidacy is critical to the destiny of America. And that is why I have thrown my hat into the ring in the fight for the Republican presidential nomination... We can no longer follow leaders for whom the moral challenge facing this nation is an afterthought...Politicians unwilling to confront the killing spirit of our times declare their moral cowardice and forfeit the right to lead...Our political leaders today neither recognize nor care sufficiently for our national liberty, identity, and purpose. Yet dedication to this Providential purpose is, I believe the heart and soul of what it means to be a conservative and A Republican...I can't promise you that Alan Keyes will be the next president of the United States. But I can promise that were going to raise the standard high in this country and were going to make it so clear and so unequivocal that we will be like a lightning flash across the landscape of American depravity, and we will show the way back home. If we will work together, pray together, struggle together in this cause, then we will ultimately win a victory for America. We will make this a country where the heritage of real freedom survives for our children and our grandchildren for as long a God determines that we shall exist upon this Earth.

That is why I have entered the presidential race, and why I urge you to support me in this crucial campaign.” -Alan Keyes


Core Beliefs Based on ‘Unalienable Rights’

Before I can give you my position on various issues, I must first make clear how I approach thinking about those issues.

I believe that we face what is essentially one moral challenge which manifests itself in many areas. Simply stated, that challenge has to do with the corruption of our understanding of freedom, which leads to the abandonment of respect for law and individual responsibility, the twin pillars which ought to undergird true freedom.

As a free people, our way of life depends upon certain moral ideas. As a matter of personal conscience, I believe that Christianity most perfectly embodies those ideas.

But since Americans come from many different religious backgrounds, in dealing with issues of public policy we must derive these ideas from sources that are open to support from all the people.

Nothing meets this purpose more completely than the principles and logic of our own Declaration of Independence, so I have made it the explicit basis for dealing with the moral crisis we now face.

The Declaration is fundamentally a statement of the principles of justice that define the moral identity of the American people. It presents a certain concept of our human nature and draws out the political consequences of that concept,

All human beings are created equal. They need no title or qualification beyond their simple humanity in order to command respect for their intrinsic human dignity, their "unalienable rights."

The purpose of government is to secure these rights, and no government is just or legitimate if it systematically violates them.

But the Declaration is more than just an assertion of rights. It also makes a clear statement about the ultimate source of authority which commands respect for those rights. God, the Creator, the author of the laws of nature, is that source.

Thus the effective prerequisite for human rights is respect for God's authority and His eternal laws. This is also the prerequisite for the idea of government based upon consent, which includes free elections, representation, due process of law, etc.

If we accept the logic of our Declaration of Independence, this reverence for God is not just a matter of religious faith. It is the foundation of justice and citizenship in our Republic.

Therefore, our freedom is derived from our respect for law, especially the highest law as embodied in the will of the Creator. Thus rightly understood, freedom cannot be confused with mere licentiousness. It first of all involves the duty to respect its own foundations in the laws of nature and nature's God. That's why our rights are "unalienable" which means that we do not have the right to surrender or destroy them by our choice or actions.

Indeed, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have the duty to resist and overthrow the power responsible. This duty involves both the judgment and the moral and material capacity to resist tyranny.

These concepts constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain.



The assertion of a woman's "right" to abortion epitomizes the corrupt concept of freedom that has tragically achieved ascendancy in our times. If the Declaration of Independence states our creed, there can be no right to abortion, since it means denying the most fundamental right of all to the unborn child, the right to life. Some people talk about the "viability" as a test to determine which human offspring have rights which we must respect, and which do not because they are somehow less human. But the Declaration states plainly that we are all created equal. If human beings can arbitrarily decide who is human and who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights is utterly violated. When whites wished to enslave blacks, they denied their humanity, and so construed the right to hold slaves as a property right.  The same type of absurdity is falsely proclaimed today by the pro-abortion culture of death.

After conception, life in the womb is in this respect no different than life outside the womb. We are, therefore, obliged to treat the human being, once conceived, with the same respect that we demand for ourselves. Except where necessary to save the physical life of the mother, abortion is the unjust taking of a human life and a breach of the fundamental tenets of our public moral creed.



As for the so-called "right to suicide" and related practices, such as euthanasia, whatever emotional arguments we make on their behalf, they represent a violation of the essential principles of the Declaration.  Our rights, including the right to life, are unalienable.  This means that we do not have the right to surrender or destroy them.

Now if we kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both surrender and destroy our right to life.  We act unjustly and usurp the authority that belongs solely to the Creator. Thus we deny the transcendent base of our claim to human rights.


Tax Cuts/Government Spending.

Excessive government spending, and the excessive taxation and borrowing it produces, are therefore not only a threat to our economy -- they erode the resource base of our freedom and our moral responsibility. The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes.  They can't spend what they don't get.  But we must also take away the government's credit card.  With limits on both tax revenue and borrowing, the Federal government would finally be forced to get serious about spending cuts. 

That's why a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, with barriers to both borrowing and spending, is the way to secure budget discipline. A good place to start would be to abolish the income tax. Fiscal sanity and moral revival go hand in hand.


Welfare/Family Discrimination.

Most of our expensive government welfare programs aim to deal with problems that are related to the breakdown of moral standards and self-discipline. We will go bankrupt as a nation if we continue trying to pay the ever-increasing costs of our society's moral disintegration. We must end government programs like the family-destroying welfare system and sex-education courses that encourage promiscuity. These programs actually hasten the moral breakdown. Our first priority should be restoring the moral and material support for the marriage-based two-parent family. The disintegration of the family is the major contributing factor in poverty, crime, violence, the decline in educational performance, and a host of other expensive social problems.


Religion/School Prayer.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state" is a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

The First Amendment prohibition of established religion aims at forbidding all government sponsored coercion of religious conscience. It does not forbid all religious influence upon politics or society. The free exercise of religion means nothing if, in connection with the ordinary events and circumstances of life, individuals are forbidden to act upon their religious faith.

As President, I would do everything in my power, through public speeches and persuasion, by proposing legislation, and by careful scrutiny of the candidates for judicial appointments, to turn the tide against constitutional interpretations that undermine religious freedom. I oppose any efforts to use government power to impose views that contravene religious conscience on matters such as homosexuality and abortion.


Homosexual Rights.

In terms of civil rights discrimination, it is wrong to treat sexual orientation like race. Race is a condition beyond the individual's control. Sexual orientation involves behavior especially in response to passion.

If we equate sexual orientation and race, we are saying that sexual behavior is beyond the Individual's control and moral will. We cannot embrace such an understanding of civil rights without denying the human moral capacity, and with it the fitness of human beings for life in a free society. The effort to equate homosexual and lesbian relations with legal marriage represents a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family.


Sex Education.

Human sexuality is primarily a mater of moral and not just physical healthy. So-called health-based sex education programs have done more harm than good. They too often encourage adolescents to consider sexual activity apart from marriage and family life. Especially in government schools, where teachers try to deal with sexual matters without reference to moral authority, they result in a vapid, context-free presentation of sexual mechanics which degrades and debases the meaning of relations between the sexes. Sex education is, as a rule, the private responsibility of parents. The government should not usurp this role. Where parents choose to encourage school-based instruction, I strongly support abstinence-based approaches for young adults.


School Choice.

The court-initiated prohibition of school prayer is only the symptom of a deeper problem, the neglect of moral education and character formation. The value-free education offered by the government run schools has all too often proven to be education without value. This is especially true now that Outcome Based Education has been used as an excuse to establish curricular elements that amount to the politically correct brainwashing of our children.

I strongly favor school choice approaches that empower parents to send their children to schools that reflect the parent's faith and values. We not only need prayer in schools, we need schools that are in the hands of people who pray. Above all,  we must break the government monopoly an public education.


Affirmative Action.

In the 1960's, the civil rights movement sought the assistance of government to enforce the fundamental principle that all men are created equal. But today's civil rights groups, Including the NAACP, have abandoned that principle in favor of preferential treatment for groups that they claim have suffered past discrimination. But we cannot cure a past injustice with another injustice. Moreover affirmative action programs patronize American blacks because it presumes that blacks cannot succeed an their own. Affirmative action does not advance civil rights in this country. It is merely another government patronage program to secure money and jobs for the few people who benefit from it.

Black leaders should address the moral decay that has resulted in the breakdown of the two-parent family. Statistics show that today only 36 percent of black children grow up in two-parent families.

When there is such an acute moral crisis in this country, defending affirmative action is a waste of time and energy.


United Nations.

I believe that the U.N. can serve some useful purposes in the world. But we need to go to the U.N. to promote the interests of America, not the agenda of globalists who favor world government. We must at all costs defend our national sovereignty, independence, and identity as Americans. It is America's responsibility to take care of America's interests. When you advocate passing responsibility to the U.N., as the Clinton administration has done, you are not taking leadership. Instead you are sacrificing America's leadership role and position in the world, and that's going to be dangerous.

Where U.N. treaties are concerned, we should proceed with extreme caution. One glaring example is the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which is the most explicit assault on the authority of parents and the integrity of the family we have ever seen. We absolutely never should ratify it.


Women in Combat.

Though I believe strongly in equality of the sexes, I reject the idea that sexual differences make no difference. I would restore fully the exemption of women from involuntary service in land combat units, and I would institute an in-depth review and reexamination of the policy of assigning female volunteers to combat duty.

Our military forces are not fit subjects for questionable social experimentation. Military preparedness, not political correctness, should be the top priority.


Who is Alan Keyes?

Alan Keyes is a...


Seasoned Statesman. Keyes served in the U.S. Foreign Service and on the staff of the National Security Council before becoming Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council as deputy to Jeanne Kirkpatrick (1983-85), representing the United States in the U.N. General Assembly. He was then appointed Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (1985-87).


Genuine Conservative. Keyes was President of Citizens Against Government Waste (1989-91) and founder of CAGW's National Taxpayer's Action Day. As the two-time Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Maryland, he challenged liberal Democrats Paul Sarbanes (1988) and Barbara Mikulski (1992).


True Intellectual. Keyes received his Ph.D. in Government Affairs in 1979 from Harvard, where his roommate was William Kristol. He served as Interim President of Alabama A&M University in 1991. He is the author of Masters of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America (1995, William Morrow Co.).


Dedicated Family Man. Keyes and his wife Jocelyn have three children: Francis, 12; Maya, 9; and Andrew, 6. His nationally syndicated call-in radio show, The Alan Keyes Show: America's Wake-up Call, consistently promotes pro-family issues. Keyes' stated purpose in life, like that of America's founders, is to provide a secure future for our posterity.


Pro-Life Christian. Keyes has unashamedly and consistently raised the standards of the American Declaration of Independence and Biblical truth in defense of the unborn, declaring the child in the womb to be a human being created in the image of God from the moment of conception. He confronts the culture of death with an unwavering and unequivocal demand that abortion be banned from our land.


©2000-2020 by the 4President Corporation