I was recently informed by a fellow friend of liberty and admirer of the ideas of Ayn Rand that a large number of adherents to Ayn Rand’s philosophy – Objectivism – are planning to purchase the Plume edition of Atlas Shrugged on February 2, 2009 – the 104^th anniversary of Ayn Rand’s birthday. The book is currently ranked 92^nd on Amazon.com, and the aim of the book bomb participants is to raise the book’s rank to first. Then, the hope is that a large number of people who have previously not been introduced to Ayn Rand’s work will begin to pay attention to it and will refer to it for solid counterarguments against the disastrous political and economic course pursued by the U. S. government during the past several years and decades.

A considerable debate has been taking place among Objectivists regarding the merits of the book bomb as a way to increase exposure to Ayn Rand’s work. You can see many of the discussions on the Objectivism Online forum.

I will personally not be participating in the book bomb, as I already own two different editions of Atlas Shrugged, and I am running out of space to hold my extensive library of books!

However, if you do not yet own a copy of this book, I certainly encourage you to participate and purchase this edition. I own it already, and I find it conveniently portable. You might as well purchase it on February 2 – which is only two days away – and thereby help the book bomb effort as a side effect of your own purchase. Atlas Shrugged is an excellent read, and I believe it to be a necessary prerequisite for being philosophically and economically well-rounded – even if you end up disagreeing with some or all of the ideas in it.

Many Objectivists have argued that the book bomb is not the best way to spend money to advance rational ideas and have also claimed that the book bomb’s intention will fail even if it raises Atlas Shrugged to the first sales rank. This argument states in mild form that if enough people find out that the book bomb was a deliberate effort, then it will simply be seen as a propaganda push by devoted Objectivists and not a genuine spontaneous flowering of interest. Worse yet, Objectivists might be compared by their detractors to advocates of the wildly irrational cult of Scientology – which has used book bombs in the past.

I will not go so far as dissuading book bomb advocates – because I think that they ought to try their idea and see what happens. It is sometimes possible to predict the outcome of future events through rational deliberation, but it is also useful to have direct empirical evidence in order to see how much weight each causal factor has in determining the outcome of an event. The kind of backlash that book bomb skeptics foresee may happen, but the question is, to what degree? If 50,000 people are turned away from Objectivism by mistakenly likening it to Scientology but 500,000 are simply convinced to read Atlas Shrugged because they find out about it for the first time, then there would be a net gain of 450,000 people who are now at least aware of Ayn Rand’s ideas. That would be progress. Let the experiment take place and see what happens. I am also strongly inclined to think that the manner in which the book bomb is conducted may have an effect on its outcome. If each Objectivist participant purchases 50 copies of the book, then many will suspect foul play. On the other hand, if each person purchases one or two books, then it is entirely possible that other reasons besides the book bomb are involved – say, giving a copy of the book to a friend, a relative, or a library. This is the de facto equivalent of that friend, relative, or library purchasing the book, and there is nothing dishonest about this. Each book so purchased will genuinely introduce a new person or multiple people to Ayn Rand’s ideas.\

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Strengthening or Weakening the Economy?

Ron Paul

Issue CLXXXV - January 30, 2009

Recommend this page.

The economic situation continues to deteriorate this week as past and future bailouts were discussed on Capitol Hill. The debate was over the accountability of already disbursed TARP money, and on whether or not to release remaining funds. Banks that had already been bailed out before are looking for more money to fill the black holes that are their balance sheets, warning that they are simply too big to fail. However, whatever ‘devastating’ consequences these banks are dreaming up and pushing on Capitol Hill regarding their own collapse will be nothing compared to the collapse of our currency if we keep debasing it through these foolish bailouts. It should be that they are too big to bail out. The world will not come to an end without this or that bank. The most troubling thing to me is this rhetoric that only government can save the economy, and must act. This is so counter-productive.

We must ask ourselves what strengthens this country, and what weakens it.

Government is a monumental drag on this economy. Government at all levels currently absorbs about 35-40 percent of GDP, which is still not enough for its voracious appetite. While productivity is already overtaxed, the government routinely spends more than it takes in and makes up for the shortfall by constantly borrowing or debasing our dollars through inflation. It pains me to think of all the opportunities for productive economic growth we have given up simply because our government is super-sized instead of Constitution-sized. There are just a few constitutionally sanctioned activities for government to engage in, but it is so overstretched with unconstitutional encroachments that what it is legitimately supposed to do, it does very badly. And yet we are to believe the solution to our problems is to make government bigger. On the contrary, government makes our problems bigger. The central bank’s meddling with monetary policy led to overheated lending, and now massive defaults. The government used manipulative tax policy to distort the housing market, which has had many unintended consequences, and here we are. Government is quick to enact and slow to correct bad policy. Yet in spite of government’s failures, it flourishes and grows, thanks to the continual bailouts from the unwitting taxpayer.

Big government has been tried and has failed miserably. What we need now is small government, and freedom. We need the freedom to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps again, as we traditionally do in this country. But try to start a business or charity today, and you will understand how little economic freedom we really have left. Freedom, not government, made this the land of opportunity. Freedom laid the foundation that catapulted us to becoming the strongest economic power in the world. The American people are strong and capable. We can pull ourselves out of this mess. All we need is for the nanny-state to get out of the way and allow us to do it. Freedom is our strength, government is our weakness. Only by recognizing this and unleashing our strengths will we solve the problems we face today.

­­___________

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

To learn more about Congressman Ron Paul, visit his Congressional Home Page.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Stimulating Our Way to Rock Bottom

Ron Paul

Issue CLXXXV - January 30, 2009

Recommend this page.

With attention turning to the next big economic stimulus package, questions are still swirling about our economic troubles. How did we get here? How do we get out? As usual, Washington has all the wrong answers. According to many politicians, we got here by not spending enough, not consuming enough, and not regulating enough. Now government, like some mythical white knight, is going to ride in to save the day by blanketing the economy with dollars, hiring an army of new bureaucrats, creating make-work jobs, and sending everyone some form of a bailout check. The debate seems to focus on whether this will cost enough to save the economy, or if this is just a “down payment” with much more government spending to come. Talk like that would be comical, if the results weren’t going to be so tragic.

The results will be worsening economic woes until we learn our lesson. But instead Congress is behaving like drug addicts who must hit rock bottom before they are ready to face reality. They are playing foolish games with the economy now because they are thinking only of political expedience. This talk of job creation is a perfect example.

Contrary to the belief of many, the goal of the economy is not job creation. Jobs can be a sign of a healthy economy, as a high energy level can be a sign of a healthy body. But just as unhealthy substances can artificially give the addict that burst of energy that has nothing to do with health, artificially created jobs just exacerbate our problems. The goal of a healthy economy is productivity. Jobs are a positive outcome of that. A “job” could be to dig a hole one day, and fill it back up the next, or perhaps the equivalent at a desk. This does no one any good. But the value in that paycheck ultimately has to come from taxing someone productive. Some think this round-robin type of economic model is supposed to get us somewhere.

Politicians and bureaucrats have already done their fair share to ensure that jobs in the private sector are prohibitively complicated and expensive to create. They are now shocked that the economy is shedding jobs, and want to simply create hundreds of thousands of jobs to make up for the job losses, through another so-called economic stimulus package. The private sector must be permitted to do that, but instead they are massively burdened with taxes and webs of red tape and regulation. Washington’s band-aids will only prolong this agony. The Austrian school of economics teaches that only a free-market economy, unencumbered by onerous government controls, creates long-term prosperity. Politicians, however, tend to be notoriously short-sighted.

I am left with these questions – who is going to be left standing to tax in the private sector to pay for all these public sector make-work jobs? Is Washington really to be considered some sort of savior for creating unproductive jobs in place of the productive jobs they eliminated?

We are at an economic dead end, and those in power are in denial. The truth is our economic problems are due to loose monetary policy, central economic planning, and the parasitic expenses of government. Unless we assess these problems honestly, we unfortunately have a long way to go until, like the junkie, we hit rock bottom.

­­___________

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

To learn more about Congressman Ron Paul, visit his Congressional Home Page.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Opportunities for Peace and Nonintervention

Ron Paul

Issue CLXXXV - January 30, 2009

Recommend this page.

Last week I discussed our worsening economic situation and the fact that there are very few options for the new administration to improve things in the long run. The same is not true on the foreign policy front. Our interventionist foreign policy stands ready to be put on a new course with the new administration. Unfortunately, it seems the new administration is likely to continue the mistakes of the past. I’ve often discussed interventionist foreign policy and the resulting blowback. The current administration’s foreign policy, I’m afraid, has created a huge impetus for blowback against the United States. However, I truly believe much of the world stands ready to look beyond our nation’s recent blunders if the new administration proves to be heading in a more reasonable direction.

Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us. We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. Other countries have their problems, to be sure. But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us? Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well. Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats.

We should follow the foreign policy advice of the Founders – friendship and commerce with all nations. One positive step would be to end our destructive embargo of Cuba, which deprives our farmers of a market just 90 miles from US shores while strengthening the Communist regime. We’ve seen 50 years of statist restrictions not accomplish anything. A change is needed. Other countries should decide how to govern themselves. Even if we don’t necessarily approve, it’s none of our business. If other people foolishly choose to live under statist experimental regimes, they need to fail in their own right, and not have us as a scapegoat. We need to focus on our own affairs.

However, the pressures exerted on our leadership from the military-industrial complex and big business are not in favor of peace or freedom, or especially nonintervention. Intervention is big business. Defense contracts topped $300 billion last year, and total spending on war and our overseas empire is up to $1 trillion per year. That represents a lot of people earning a living off of war and conquest. But rather than adding to our economy, all of this money is taken from the economy in order to wage war and destruction. Imagine if those resources were put to creative, productive use here at home!

We need to rein in our overseas empire, as quickly as possible. We need to bring our troops home, and get our economy back into the business of production, not destruction. The smartest thing we could do is admit we don’t know all the answers to all the world’s problems. If the new administration can take a closer look at real free trade and no entangling alliances, we would be much better off for it. Economically – we could save hundreds of billions of dollars each year! The new leadership has the opportunity and the political capital to do this. But unfortunately, it is not likely to happen.

­­___________

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

To learn more about Congressman Ron Paul, visit his Congressional Home Page.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Transition and Hope

Ron Paul

Issue CLXXXV - January 30, 2009

Recommend this page.

As a new year begins, there are some important transitions ahead of us. Not just transitions to a new administration, but also economically, politically, and culturally.

Many hoped that the changes would signify overwhelming positive steps for our country, and that we would enter a new era, as promised during the campaign. I would like for this to be true, but based on the continuity so far, I would not be surprised to see America stay on the same course of failed monetary and economic policies. The course has been set for several decades, and in reality there is little the new administration could do to fix things without actually making them worse. But I expect them to try. The only real solutions involve allowing the market to liquidate the debt and malinvestment. The political reality is that this is not going to happen.

Through the coming months and years, our nation will find itself at many crossroads, as all manner of socialist, corporatist, protectionist, and nationalist initiatives will be thrown at the economy to see if anything will reflate it. Some of these so-called fixes will be enacted amidst much outcry, as with the $700 billion TARP bailout, which the public was right to oppose. About half of that money is gone without a trace, with no accountability, and the economy is no better off for it. Others, such as the proposed new $800 billion plus economic stimulus the new administration is already clamoring for, might have limited public support, as many will find the prospect of receiving a government check a little too tempting to object to. After all, Wall Street got a bailout. What about the little guy? Everything will be attempted by government in the short run to remedy the worsening situation – everything, that is, but freedom. Therefore, everything attempted will fail. Unfortunately, government will continue to consolidate and abuse power at an accelerated pace. Government will get bigger, in the short term, and as monetary policy goes from irresponsible to absurd, I have every expectation that we will soon shift from some prices falling to an inflationary nightmare.

But there is hope. As all these attempts fail, more people will demand freedom, and see that it is the only way. Government can only get so big before the country goes broke.

It is regrettable that we keep forgetting what history has shown over and over to be true, because truly, it is a hard and destructive lesson to keep learning. Perhaps it is just something that every generation has to learn for itself. The political and cultural changes that come from these economic transitions will be key to the direction and quality of life for future generations. But I am hopeful because of the strength of the American people and the increased number of voices recognizing that liberty really is the only way to peace and prosperity.

­­___________

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

To learn more about Congressman Ron Paul, visit his Congressional Home Page.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Government and Fraud

Ron Paul

Issue CLXXXV - January 30, 2009

Recommend this page.

Billions of dollars were recently lost in the collapse of Bernie Madoff’s self-described Ponzi scheme, in which too-good-to-be-true returns on investments were not really returns at all, but the funds of defrauded new investors. The pyramid scheme collapsed dramatically when too many clients called in their accounts, and not enough new victims could be found to support these withdrawals. Bernie Madoff was running a blatant fraud operation. Fraud is already illegal, and he will be facing criminal consequences, which is as it should be, and should act as an appropriate deterrent to potential future criminals. But it seems every time someone breaks the law, politicians and pundits decide we need more laws, even though lack of laws was not the problem.

The government itself runs a fraud much bigger than Madoff’s. Our Social Security system is the very definition of a Ponzi, or pyramid, scheme. If the government truly had an interest in protecting people’s savings, it would allow people to opt out of Social Security altogether. We would cut wasteful spending, such as our overseas empire, to honor current obligations to seniors, and eventually phase the program out. Instead, as with Enron and Sarbanes Oxley, I expect new, unrelated legislation to be proposed that further damages freedom in the name of protecting us, amidst loud proclamations that it has made the world safe.

Merely passing a law does not fix any problems, just as throwing paper at a recession does not stop it. How can a government so complicit in mandatory public fraud effectively pre-empt private fraud? I see no reason to believe that any new law, or regulatory agency, will solve anything. But I do see liberty slipping away every time Congress decides to “do something”. We already have an oversight agency, the SEC, which did a poor job overseeing and preventing this, but does a great job hamstringing honest, productive businesses and driving them overseas.

Total trust in government solutions only creates moral hazard, and amplifies risky behavior. Trust in government got us here. We trusted government to eliminate risk, but it just made risk more creative and dangerous. We trusted the Federal Reserve, a supra-governmental cabal of private banks, to know better than the free market what interest rates should be, and how to stabilize the business cycle, but like a spinning top that loses its balance, it has instead spun the business cycle and the economy wildly out of control.

No governmental activity can negate market forces or nullify the cardinal rule of caveat emptor. Government can however, use our fears against us and promise unrealistic outcomes as a means to consolidate power and erode our liberties. Liberty comes with risk. This is a fact of life. But life without liberty is not much of a life at all.
The only way the American people will get through these difficult times is through our own resilience and ingenuity. At best, the government is irrelevant in finding prosperity again. At worst, government can present a massive obstacle for the economy to overcome. If we do not wise up and rein government back in to its Constitutional limitations, bloated government could be a cumbersome unnecessary weight the economy will continually have to support to stay afloat.

­­___________

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

To learn more about Congressman Ron Paul, visit his Congressional Home Page.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

New GOP Chairman Should Remove Party from the International Democrat Union

Tom DeWeese

Issue CLXXXV - January 30, 2009

Recommend this page.

The race is on for a new chairman of the Republican Party. The outcome is important because the party has become so lost over the past few decades. No longer is it the party of limited government, low taxes, and free enterprise. To the contrary, under the reign of terror by the Bush Administration, the GOP had been the force behind the largest growth of government in the history of the United States: record-setting budgets and deficits, assaults on our national sovereignty, invasion of our personal privacy, destruction of private property rights, illegal amnesty, international ID cards, and the collapse of the greatest economy in the world.

            Yes, it’s certainly time for a change in GOP leadership and direction. The candidates for Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman include former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis, South Carolina party chairman Katon Dawson, and Chip Saltsman, the presidential campaign manager of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Each of these candidates is working to convince the GOP rank and file that they are the more conservative candidate and best qualified to lead the Republican Party back to its roots of limited government. It’s a tall order.

            But here’s a true test of where they really stand. One question every true Republican should ask the wanna-be chairman is this: Which document would you choose as the guiding principle for your vision of government – the Declaration of Independence, as written by America’s Founding Fathers, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as produced by the United Nations?  

Do you think that is a strange question to ask a potential chairman of the Republican Party? Would you assume that he would naturally stand with the Founding Fathers? Then you are about to be surprised.

Not many Americans, particularly Conservative Republicans, have heard of the International Democrat Union (IDU), but most would be very surprised to learn the names of its membership and its true goals.

Formed in 1983, the IDU says it’s a “working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like minded political parties of centre and centre right.”  Some of the political party members of the IDU include the German Christian Social Union; British Conservative Party; Norway Conservative Party; …and the U.S. Republican Party.

The IDU’s 2005 Declaration, issued after a meeting in Washington, DC, stated, “Our common goal is free, just and compassionate societies. We appreciate the value of tradition and inherited wisdom. We value freely elected governments, the market-based economy and liberty for our citizens. We will protect our people from those who preach hate and plan to destroy our way of life. Free enterprise, free trade and private property are the corner stones of free ideas and creativity as well as material well-being. We believe in justice, with an independent judiciary. We believe in democracy, in limited government and a strong civic society.”   

Such a statement gives one the impression that the IDU is on a mission to spread the ideals of the American Revolution around the globe. Here, at last, might be an international organization that brings the good news of our own Declaration of Independence to the far corners of the oppressed world. No other document on earth more strongly declares the principles of liberty that made the United States the guiding light of freedom in the world. With the Republican Party as an active member, it would certainly be expected that American documents and principles would be the basis of policy for an international organization that declares it promotes “free enterprise, free trade, and private property.”

But a careful look at the IDU’s founding Declaration of Principles reveals a very different message. The second paragraph of the IDU document states: “Being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…” That, of course, is the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights that the IDU document is promoting as its guiding principle.

There are two conflicting philosophies of governance in the world. One, the American view, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, states that all people have rights they are born with and that government’s only job is to protect those rights at all costs. The Declaration says that these rights are eternal and unquestioned. It is the foundation of human freedom. It is what makes the United States a Republic, where the rights of minorities (even of one) are firmly defined and protected.

The other philosophy says that government grants our rights, professing that all such rights give way to an undefined common good whenever it’s warranted – which is often. That means that all so-called rights are subject to the whim of whatever gang is currently in power at the time, dictating the definitions of what constitutes the “common good.” Today that is commonly called a democracy, where the power of majority rule can and does obliterate the rights of minorities.  

As an example of how this second system works in practice, the Constitution of the old Soviet Union said that Soviet citizens had most of the same rights as Americans. Except that it also said individual rights were secondary to the common good. In the case of the Soviet Union, the common good was defined as creating a worldwide communist utopia where individual wants and needs simply didn’t count. We all know how that worked out for the Soviet citizens.

While veiled in language designed to sound much like the Declaration of Independence, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually takes this second approach, outlining specific rights it says we should all have. It says nothing of “unalienable” rights, instead referring to “rights under the law.” Who or what is the law, according to the Human Rights Declaration? It says, “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” Now, at first look, that sounds like America. Democracy. People voting – the opposite of dictatorship. But such a concept ignores the very root of American freedom – that our rights are guaranteed, no matter what the majority thinks or wants. Moreover, Article 29, Section 3 of the Declaration says “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” So much for “unalienable” rights.

Suppose the majority of people vote to abolish your business (Wal-Mart?) or take your home (to protect bird habitat?). The reason is always to protect the common good, or the children, or the environment, or whatever is the fad of the day. This is called majority rule, but it is still just another form of dictatorship. It’s what led to the ravages of the guillotine in revolutionary France. It’s rule by fear; fear of the wrong gang changing the rules; fear of standing against the crowd. Majority rule is simply a lynch mob – or more graphically, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

This is the root of the philosophy entrenched in the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. It is the basis for the political policy behind Sustainable Development and the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on eminent domain. It’s the philosophy that dictates a common good must be served, no matter the consequences. Personal liberty must give way to the whims of the crowd.

Now, based on its endorsement of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than the unique American founding document – the Declaration of Independence — this destructive, anti-human philosophy is entrenched and being passed off as freedom by the International Democrat Union. The IDU is an international organization that dares pretend to speak for those of us who advocate limited government and human liberty. The IDU documents are filled with rhetoric about compassion for human rights. Yet, does it show compassion to support policy that says no one’s property is safe from confiscation; no one’s dreams may be fulfilled if they aren’t approved by a jealous mob?

Is this truly what the Republican Party now supports? Well, that’s a question for those candidates now campaigning for its chairmanship. All say they seek a new direction to move the party back to its roots. So here is the question every Republican in the grassroots should ask each of these candidates: Will you remove the Republican Party from the International Democrat Union and again use the Declaration of Independence as your guide for the proper role of government? It’s a fair question they should be ready to answer.  

Action to Take

Every concerned American should directly ask each of the candidates for the GOP chairmanship if they intend to remove the Republican Party from membership in the IDU. Their answer will tell you everything you need to know about their philosophy and political goals. If they refuse to act on the IDU, then you will know they have no intention of restoring the Republican Party to its roots of Constitutional-mandated limited government, free enterprise, and individual rights.

Write to each candidate at their personal website -

1.      Ken Blackwell: http://kenblackwell.com/

2.      Saul Anuzis: www.anuzisforchair.com/

3.      Mike Duncan: www.mikeforchairman.com/

4.      Katon Dawson: www.katondawson.com/Home.html

5.      Michael Steele: www.steeleforchairman.com/

6.      Chip Saltsman: http://chipsaltsman.com/

Most, except Duncan, can be contacted on Facebook, and all (except Duncan) can be reached on Twitter.

As Grover Norquist (president, Americans for Tax Reform) said, “Never again should the RNC chair be appointed by anyone. Every center-right activist should have a say in questioning the candidates and communicating with RNC members who cast votes…just like lobbying your Congressman and Senators. The route to a freer America begins with each of us caring enough to engage on this first election in the campaign for 2010, 2012 and beyond.”

­­___________

Tom DeWeese is the President of American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

The Battle to Stop the Constitutional Convention

Tom DeWeese

Issue CLXXXV - January 30, 2009

Recommend this page.

The phone call came to my home late on Tuesday night telling me that the next morning the Ohio House of Representatives would be holding hearings on a resolution to call for a Constitutional Convention. We knew this was not good news. But the news was even worse. To our shock, records indicated that if Ohio were to pass such a resolution, it would be state number thirty-three. Only thirty-four states are needed to officially kick the convention apparatus into gear. We were only two states away! And we had only 18 hours to prepare for battle.

Now, sponsors of the resolution were not wild-eyed Leftists who sought to purge the Constitution. Rather, they were patriotic Republican conservatives who were vitally concerned about the massive spending spree and bailouts taking place in Washington, D.C. The issue, said the sponsors, was to add a balanced budget amendment to the U.S Constitution.

So why were we so concerned about the idea of a “Con Con?” Why were we ready to fight to stop it, especially if it could lead to controlling the outrageous waste of tax dollars in Washington? The reason is simple. These legislators were operating on very bad advice.

The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States’ hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to only discuss a balance budget is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention starts the delegates become super delegates which can take any action they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table, and each delegate can take a scalpel (pen) to it and change any section or even the entire document if they desire.

Section V of the Constitution, which covers the issue of Constitutional Conventions and Amendments, gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected, and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide.

The current Congress could control the entire delegate selection. States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to choose delegates, then what would be the method? Will the governor or the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral panel or blue ribbon commission?

Or could it be a plebiscite - a vote of the people? If so, then who would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of “enfranchisement,” allow all citizens and potentially foreign nationals to vote for this “special election?” There are no guidelines, and anything is possible.

And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called “proportional representation” of all special interest groups – NGOs? Will some be excluded because of “extreme” convictions? What will the criteria be? All of these choices would be made by Congress - that same one now controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Now some have argued that no matter what such a convention does, it still must be ratified by two thirds of the states, making it very difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history lesson is in order.

There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation - that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a difficult time with commerce among themselves. So it was decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected, some were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing else beyond the commerce issue.

However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades, and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.

Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Do you trust them to produce a document of such magnitude? Or would they at least take care of the present one? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to foreign laws to ensure our own are worthy. We live in an era when many believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. They are itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has shown, they can do anything they want to it, including writing a completely new document.

And there is more. Concerning the argument that whatever they do, the states must ratify it - thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery - consider this fact. The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land - until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was literally in power - even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document said ratification only required a vote of Congress - or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection in the states.

These are the reasons why my colleagues and I looked at the Ohio resolution with such horror. There has never been a worse time in the nation’s history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form of government. Do Americans really want to risk that in these uncertain times?

Also, the actual number of states said to already have ratified the Con Con varies with each inquiry. Most records indicate that thirty-two states have already passed resolutions to call for a Con Con. But they did so in the mid-1970s. Those resolutions had remained dormant for thirty years. How long is a resolution good for? Does it last forever? Or does it expire with the legislature that passed it? Most sources also indicate that three of those states have actually passed resolutions to rescind their petitions. Other sources say 37 states have passed Con Con resolutions on a balanced budged issue and that 10 states have passed resolutions to rescind. Regardless of the numbers, proponents said they found no provision in Article V for states to rescind a call for a Con Con after it was made. They say it’s like trying to “unring a bell.” Instead they intend to push for resolutions from a full 34 states and then challenge those rescinded in court. That is not a fight any of us want to take on. The bottom line is, the situation is very confused and only these points are clear - there are no rules, no one can control what is debated and therefore the effort to press for a Con Con is very dangerous.

So there we were, the night before the hearings in the Ohio House. Already on the legislative calendar was a scheduled vote on the resolution, waiting until the legislature could get these pesky hearings out of the way. Only they hadn’t counted on the power of our grassroots network.

My associate in Ohio, Chuck Michaelis, working with a network of organizations, was able to get 10 people to converge on the hearing room in the Ohio State House to testify against the resolution. No one was there to testify on its behalf. Meanwhile, as the hearing was underway, my American Policy Center issued a nationwide “Sledgehammer Alert” urging activists to call and e-mail Ohio legislators. As the hearing went on, hundreds of calls and e-mails began to pour in. By the time the hearing was over, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Lou Blessing, announced that a terrible mistake had been made and no vote would be taken on the resolution.

Undaunted, a defiant Senate, the next day filed the resolution there. But within a few days it was clear the battle was over. In the first week of January, the Ohio Legislature announced that the issue was dead, at least in Ohio.

However, on the same day the Ohio legislature was issuing that statement, we received word that Senator Emmett Hanger of Virginia intends to introduce the very same resolution into the Virginia legislature soon. The battle begins anew.

Update (Full News Release from American Policy Center): On January 11, 2009, I received a threatening e-mail from a man named Bill Walker. He is co-founder of a group called “Friends of the Article V Convention,” and one of the proponents of the Con Con. Walker said he had “irrefutable” evidence that at least one of the documents we were using for our anti-Con Con arguments was a fraud. He was referring to a famous letter to Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly from former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger.

The Burger letter is a major and damming piece of evidence against a call for a Con Con because is verifies our fears that states could not control the subject matter discussed at the convention. In the letter, Burger stated, “The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.” This is damning evidence to those who continually assure legislators that they can control the subject of a Con Con.

Walker obviously needed to discredit the letter for his own purposes, and chose to threaten me in hopes of scaring me into stopping use of it. In his e-mail to me he said, “Unless I have heard from you that you are publicly refuting the letter and thus the assertions in it, I intend to state you knew the letter was a fake all along.” He also threatened to “destroy…” my public credibility.

My first act was to verify with Phyllis Schlafly that she indeed had the letter and that it was from Burger. She did and it was. She has now posted it on the Eagle Forum web site.

APC’s position is clear. We oppose a Con Con because the subject matter cannot be controlled and we have no guarantee that we can win state ratification fights if changes to the Constitution are offered. We fear instead that, in today’s climate of radical socialism and American ignorance about the Constitution, this is the worst possible time in our nation’s history to start to mess with the greatest governing document of all time. We will continue to oppose any and all attempts to do that, no matter how noble the reason for the call. Our intention is to protect the Constitution, not, as I’ve been accused, to destroy it.

­­___________

Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

The Immortalists – Video

Jason Silva

Issue CLXXXV - January 30, 2009

Recommend this page.

This short film by Jason Silva makes a compelling case for why the greatest peril of all – death – must be defeated by scientific and medical means. Mr. Silva interviews a variety of leading immortalist thinkers, including the eminent and ingenious inventor Ray Kurzweil. He eloquently makes the point that reconciling oneself to death via religion and the philosophy of resignation is not the best approach to follow. The time for reconciliation is past; the time for resistance has arrived. We can be among the first generations of immortals if each of us contributes to the life extension effort in some manner – or at least ceases to resist it.

Please help promote this video by going to this page and giving it a rating of five stars, as well as embedding it on your websites and sharing it with others.

­­___________

Jason Silva is Host and Producer for Al Gore’s Current TV network.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.

The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

Hey Kids, It’s a Depression!

Alan Caruba

Issue CLXXXV - January 29, 2009

Recommend this page.

Here’s the difference between a recession and a depression as defined by Bloomberg Business News:

A recession occurs when a nation’s living standards drop and prices increase. This downturn in economic activity is widely defined as a decline in a country’s gross domestic product for at least two quarters.

A depression is defined as an economic condition caused by a massive decrease in business activity, falling prices, reduced purchasing power, excess of supply over demand, and rising unemployment.

If this isn’t the beginning of a depression, it sure feels like one. Just check the daily headlines. On Monday, the Financial Times informed readers that “Gloom deepens as 75,000 global jobs go.” Among the companies laying off people were Caterpillar, General Motors, Sprint Nextel, Home Depot, Pfizer, and Texas Instruments. My guess is that General Motors declares bankruptcy by March.

The Financial Times still called it a recession, but we know what it is, don’t we? And if we just look at the 1930s and see how every move the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt made only deepened and prolonged the Great Depression, we will also see what should be done, but won’t be done. Indeed, with every passing day, the Obama administration looks and sounds just like FDR’s.

As to the stimulus bill, here’s what Monday’s Wall Street Journal had to say about it:

“The stimulus bill currently steaming through Congress looks like a legislative freight train, but given last week’s analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it is more accurate to think of it as a time machine. That may be the only way to explain how spending on public works in 2011 and beyond will help the economy today.”

“According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill’s $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress’s justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.”

Much, if not most, of the proposed $825 billion “recovery act” will go to various government agencies. Even a cursory review of the 600-plus page document suggests that not much of its billions will create private sector jobs. Those portions devoted to infrastructure projects are not only worthy, but polls indicate are greatly favored by the public. By contrast, the bill includes nutty energy stuff about solar and wind farms, neither of which can produce enough steady, dependable energy to keep the lights on anywhere.

Contrary to the madness that has gripped most of Congress, government spending should be cut. There is enormous waste in government at almost every level except the local level that must answer to people directly.

There should be major cuts in the tax rates from the wealthy to the lowest paid job holders. Putting money back in the hands of people will shorten the duration of the depression by stimulating purchasing, investment, and the risks involved in beginning or expanding a business of any size.

There should be a marked reduction in government regulation of all manner of business and industry in order to avoid increasing the cost of production and facilitate research and innovation.

NONE of these options, proven, known, effective, are being discussed by the Obama administration that, in office less than two weeks, is issuing executive orders that will increase the cost of manufacturing cars in the name of fighting “global warming” or “climate change.”

Apparently word has not reached the White House that it just snowed in a Middle Eastern desert nation, the United Arab Emirates, for the first time ever! The world outside (and including) Washington, D.C. is experiencing some serious cold weather.

It’s so cold in D.C. that Al Gore’s Wednesday testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Earth is warming will likely be rescheduled.

While there is talk of tax cuts, it remains just that, talk.

Meanwhile things are going to hell in a hand-basket, so maybe it would be a good idea to (1) pay attention to the history and lessons of the Great Depression, (2) avoid repeating the same mistakes, and (3) not take your eye off the ball here at home with talk of finding a Mideast peace where none has not existed since the days of Harry Truman and, for that matter, all previous presidents.

The folks in Washington, D.C., being politicians, are all delusional, and guess who’s going to pay the price for that? Phone, fax, email your Senators and Representatives, and tell them to put the Recovery Act back on the shelf.

­­___________

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CLXXXV Index.