That would be quite incredible, if the Constitution Party nominated a former US Ambassador to the United Nations, who is still a strong supporter of this body

And will he support the Foreign Policy Plank of the Constitution Party Platform?

Here are some excerpts:

--call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations

--repudiate any commitment, express or implied, to send U.S. troops to participate in foreign conflicts, whether unilaterally, under NATO auspices, or as a part of the United Nations peace-keeping operations; and cease financing, or arming of belligerents in the world's troubled areas.

--We call upon the Congress to immediately terminate American military presence in all foreign countries where such U.S. presence constitutes an invitation for this nation to become involved in, or further participate in, foreign wars.

egarris, before we listen to you tell us that Alan Keyes supports the United Nations, why don't we just ask Alan Keyes himself?

Dr. Keyes, what is your position on the United Nations?

Dr. Keyes: "The fundamental goal of American statesmanship must be to maintain an independent sphere of sovereign American interests and principles, and to pursue them in the world with prudence and courage, retaining the awareness that the United States is responsible for its own destiny.

Whatever benefits of international cooperation and consultation the United Nations has made possible, it has from its flawed founding been a source of dangerously naive globalist dreams. Some American politicians have been so corrupted by the internationalist ideal that they cannot resist the temptation to elevate the United Nations into a supra-national entity that threatens American sovereignty.

Should this pernicious tendency persist, the United States will have to withdraw from the United Nations, and yet firmly maintain our ongoing international responsibilities as a sovereign nation and world leader.

Ultimately, it is more important that the United States of America should survive in freedom than that the United Nations should survive at all.

Let me add that I have never supported the United Nations. As a UN ambassador, I represented the interests of the United States at the United Nations, which is a very different thing than supporting the UN itself. And during the course of my time as ambassador, we implemented some fairly tough policies that were considered to be anti-UN -- though, in point of fact, they were really aimed at trying to bring the organization back to its original purposes and charter.

The original purpose of the UN is quite clear, and I don't believe it's blamable. At the end of World War II, some folks got together and said, "We mustn't let that happen again. Is there anything we can do?" I don't believe that's a blamable intention. I believe it's a praiseworthy intention. We don't want the world to go up in smoke.

On the other hand, the people who have, since that time, sought to use the United Nations and its instruments to destroy the sovereignty of our country, to betray the principles of our liberty, to sacrifice the keys to our economic survival and liberty are all people I have opposed and strenuously fought. And my purpose for being at the United Nations with the Reagan Administration was precisely that -- to defend our interests and to fight the forces at the United Nations that were attempting to destroy us.

I don't believe that we should ever allow the UN any prerogatives that undermine or conflict with the sovereignty of the United States. Rather than do so, we should leave the organization."

www.alankeyes.com
Most recent radio interview: http://archives.alankeyes.com/play.php?mp3=186