American Policy Center » 2003 » December
- Principle Before Party
- Still Fighting
- New Conservative Magazine Declares Independence from GOP
- The UN Moves To Snuff Out The Light Of The World
December 24, 2003
By Tom DeWeese
Fifty years ago the modern movement to defend the principles of liberty, outlined in the United States Constitution, began. That was when conservatives and libertarians began to stand up to those who advocated government as the answer to the basic questions of life, as opposed to individual responsibility.
The new conservatives advocated individual freedom, free markets, entrepreneurship, and limited government intervention into the everyday lives of American families.
At the time, the Republican Party was the best vehicle for promoting the ideals of the new movement. It was the party of Robert Taft and, later, Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan. It was the Party that preached the gospel of limited government and the Judeo/Christian ideals that are the foundation of Western Culture.
The problem was the Republican Party was also the home of Nelson Rockefeller and the Eastern Establishment elite who advocated their own plans for a welfare state, much like that of the Democrats, only on a slower, smaller basis. They liked the benefits of the money business could provide, but wanted to use government to keep it in check. It was also a handy tool to control your competition.
So a titanic battle between ideologies began for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Political parties are simply tools for winning elections. The kind of candidates they produce and the policies they advocate are a product of those in control. Conservatives in the middle of the Twentieth Century understood this. They took up the battle cry of “principle before party” and then set out to make sure the Republican Party was true to conservative principles.
However, somewhere along the way, conservative principles got watered down with “Republican” policies. The once mighty conservative grassroots activists have been reduced to taken-for-granted pawns, warned to speak no evil of a fellow Republican. Above all, don’t be so childish as to “stand for principle.” Do so at the risk of finding the label “extremist” permanently tattooed to your name. We are warned that the alternative to the Republicans are the devil Democrats – and you know what that means! Big government. Uncontrolled spending. Higher taxes. Greater regulations on business. Assaults on family values.
In fear, we comply. Conservatives shuffle their feet, look down at the floor, bleat the party line, accept the “compromises”, and acknowledge their fate on the backbenches.
Republicans now have a new agenda. It started with the label of the undefined “compassionate conservatism.” Now, the compassionate Republican Administration has ventured on a new path called “National Greatness” with the express purpose of creating an American empire which seeks to re-draw the map of the Middle East and use American might to force American ideals on others. They believe force should not just be limited to the defense of our country.
According to this new policy, big government isn’t bad – it just depends on who is running it. “We can make government great for the American people as long as we’re in charge” goes the Party line. Three years of complete Republican rule have given us a clear understanding of its meaning. Close inspection will show that this is not your father’s GOP. And it’s not conservative!
On the domestic front, the Republican Party just forced the passage of a Medicare bill that will cost $7 trillion of unfunded entitlement. According to reports coming from Capitol Hill, Republican leadership in Congress applied unprecedented pressure on GOP members to get it passed so the President would have a major campaign issue in his pocket.
According to Congressman Nick Smith of Michigan, there were threats and intimidation for him to swallow his convictions that the bill was bad for America. He was threatened in midnight appeals from House Speaker Dennis Hastert that, should he vote against the bill, his son, now running for Smith’s seat, would never get elected. Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida, after resisting phone calls from President Bush, was told that a no vote would delay his ascent to House leadership by three more years. In the end, only 25 Republicans stood for the conservative principle that government shouldn’t be in the healthcare business and voted against the Medicare bill. Big government just got a whole lot bigger under Republican rule.
Remember 1994 when the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives? One major battle cry was their determination to abolish the Department of Education. Why? The federal government has no business being involved in education, which should be controlled at the local level. That’s a point of fact in the Constitution and a conservative principle. Today, under Republican control, the issue is simply no longer on the agenda.
The Bush Administration, under the “No Child Left Behind” Act has created more regulations and more funding for federally controlled curriculum than ever before. The Act itself was basically written by Ted Kennedy. No-Child-Left-Behind is simply the permanent solidification of the failed policies of Goals 2000, School to Work and the Workforce Development Act. As a result, American education is now completely controlled from Washington. The federal education bureaucracy just got a whole lot more powerful under Republican rule.
Sustainable Development is the official policy of the Bush Administration. It is a leftover from Bill Clinton and could have been eliminated in preference to reestablishing our Constitutional form of representative government in which the local town councils and county commissioners are empowered to decide local issues.
President Bush chose not to take that action. Instead, he chose Sustainable Development, a top-down federal zoning approach designed to restructure American communities to fit the dictates of the United Nation’s Agenda 21 treaty. As a result of Sustainable Development policies, private, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with specific political agendas are now in (partnership) with elected officials, guiding policy from a central blueprint. As once guaranteed rights under a rule of law are now pulled and stretched to fit the current fad policy, homeowners are no longer confident that their property is secure from new regulations. There is fear that, at any time, their investment (indeed their home) could suddenly be taken at the whim of newly created Sustainable policy. Belief in the American dream is dying under Republican rule.
Christianity, the very foundation of Western culture, is being systematically eliminated from the United States. We’ve witnessed the incredible sight of a monument of the Ten Commandments being physically removed from the Alabama Supreme Court at the edict of a federal judge. Both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions clearly state that the federal government has no jurisdiction in the case. Not only has the Bush Administration stood by and let it happen, it is now considering the prosecutor in the case for a federal judgeship. As a result of that case, actions to remove any sign of the Christian religion from public places have quickened in pace. God is being removed from America under Republican rule.
Our nation is being attacked by fanatical terrorists and we must defend against them. We have the U.S. Military, the FBI, the CIA, State and local police. It’s well defined that their job is to defend our borders, coastline, airspace and cities from threats, both inside and out of our borders. Why is a massive new agency, armed with the power to intrude into our homes without a search warrant, necessary?
Does the reader remember hearing the term “Homeland Security” prior to September 11, 2001? Where did the term come from? Familiar terms for defending our borders have always been national defense or national security. Where did the term “Homeland” come from? It seems the term has been rattling around the United Nations for some time. And, in fact, in 2000, at the UN’s Millennium Summit, attended by 179 world leaders, all nations present agreed to adopt, without reservation, recommendations for Homeland Security. It was all contained in a document called the Brahimi Report.
According to researcher Joan Peros, several paragraphs in the section on Civilian Police are of special note. It calls for member states to increase their numbers of civilian police and to reform and restructure local police forces so they can be used in UN peace operations. It calls for joint exercises and regional training partnerships. Paragraph 124 calls for Member States to designate a single point of contact within their government structures to be responsible for coordinating and managing the provisions of police personnel. In compliance, the United States set up its single point of contact: The Department of Homeland Security.
By the way, the German translation of the phrase “Homeland Security” is “Schutz Staffel.” The Nazis shortened it to “SS.” A massive, intrusive cabinet-level agency with power beyond the wildest dreams of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson combined has just been established under Republican rule.
The Bush administration put our country back into UNESCO. The Bush Administration is moving forward with plans to put illegal aliens on our already-bankrupt Social Security system. Indeed it wants a full amnesty granted to millions of outlaw aliens who disregarded our rule of law just to sneak in here.
Conservatives, Libertarians, Americans who believe that the Constitution was and is the best document yet devised to protect human liberty, it’s time to come out of your trance and begin anew the fight for “principle before party.” It is not wrong for you to oppose these actions. It is not wrong to speak ill of a Party that has lost its way. It is not treason to oppose these outrageous excesses of the Republican Party. Indeed, it may be treason if you do not.
December 24, 2003
By Peyton Knight
In 1987, residents who reside along West Virginia State Route 26, more commonly known as the “New River Road” because of its proximity to the rolling body of water, were told by the local authorities that their road would soon receive a much needed upgrade. Being a single lane road, speckled with massive potholes, blind curves, and seasonal standing water areas, the residents were receptive to the idea. They were assured that the renovation was to have “little impact on private property.”
Fast-forward 12 years later, and the road had still not been repaired. Finally, in September of 1999, property owners along the New River Road were invited to a public meeting hosted by the West Virginia Division of Highways. At long last their new road was to be built. However, they never dreamed that they would be forced to pay for their road with their heritage and culture.
Eighty-four-year-old widow, Mabel Flanagan, was one of the property owners in attendance that day. Mabel noticed a large display board with a picture of her home. Next to that board was a picture of her plot of land—minus the house! Through digital imagery, Mabel’s home was removed, as if it had never existed. Why? To show all those at the meeting how “scenic” the surrounding area would look without Mabel’s house. Horrified, Mabel returned home, never to venture outside her house again. In a T.V. interview days after the public meeting, Mabel pleaded into the camera: “I want to die in my home on the New River.”
The following summer, a feeble, scared Mabel Flanagan did indeed pass away in her beloved home on the river. Perhaps waiting to lose it to the government.
Today, citizens living along the New River in Hinton are still fighting to keep the land they own. Many fear that they won’t be able to ward off the Park Service much longer. The New River Parkway Authority is pulling out all the stops, relentlessly trying to turn the residents of Hinton into “willing sellers,” and in some instances, attempting to turn neighbors against each other, in hopes they will help sell unwilling sellers down the river.
Ann Roach, a grandmother of eight, fulfilled one of her dreams when she purchased a small summer cabin in Hinton with her husband. A parkway official phoned her to discuss various options she had with the construction of the new road. All of the options included government land acquisition in one way or another. The official also made a strange aside to Ann. She recalls: “He asked me, in so many words, ‘Tell me the truth, wouldn’t it be nice to get rid of that unsightly mess next to you?’” The man on the phone was referring to an elderly neighbor of Ann’s who has lived on his riverside property all of his life. “They’re not concerned with the scenic value,” Ann said, “they just want our land.”
Ann and her neighbors have founded a group they call “Sisters of the River” to consolidate forces and fight for their property. Ann and her neighbors own the land on which they live. It’s bought and paid for. Where is the rule of law to protect their right to the land they own? Where are the compassionate elected officials responsible for protecting their rights and property? Recently, Ann Roach posed these questions to Senator Robert Byrd, a man who professes to be an expert on the Constitution.
An open letter to U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)
Senator Robert C. Byrd informed me in a recent letter that he couldn’t intervene in any decisions about the New River Parkway from I-64 to Hinton, as it was “just a highway project.”
Granted, Senator Byrd wasn’t with me and all the other private property owners when we were invited into a room monitored by armed guards to be told the much needed upgrade to our road, that we’d supported for years, was to become a National Park Service land grab, taking all of our property in the viewshed of the parkway—as far as the eye could see.
And, maybe, Senator Byrd believes the verbal assurances of the highway employees that “only the land needed for the right-of-way would be taken” despite the fact that all the agencies involved signed an agreement stating otherwise.
And, after my grieving that Senator Byrd is equally as duped as the people who support the parkway who also (mistakenly) believe that it’s “just a highway project” I realized it is just that: “just a highway project.” The same “highway” ALL of America is currently on, speeding down a slippery sloping road straight into a land called Socialism.
While our honorable Senator continues to lovingly pat that U.S. Constitution he so proudly carries in his pocket, I’m more convinced than ever that book is fast becoming not worth the paper on which it’s written.
(And yes, you were 100% right, Senator Byrd, in stating that I “may not agree with you.” I don’t. And I definitely don’t agree with your failure to intervene on your constituents’ behalf to save their homes, land, farms, camps and small and large businesses just so the government can take more of the same in West Virginia and all over this once great place called America.)
Respectfully,
Ann Roach, President
Sisters of the River
www.newriverfriends.org
Conservative Battleline Online To Speak For Limited Government Conservatives Against Big Government Right
December 15, 2003
Alexandria, VA - Donald Devine, a vice chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation, announced the publication of a new online conservative journal of opinion to be called ConservativeBattleline, located at conservativebattleline.com.
Current features include: the Republican Party as the new welfare state party, the limits of the Bush plans for democracy in Iraq, the culture wars, the GOP sell out on Medicare and critiques of National Review, The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal, among others.
“The $7 trillion unfunded liability of the new Medicare prescription drug bill created by a Republican Congress and signed by President George Bush this week is the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as it is the largest expansion of non-defense discretionary spending since the Great Society. We are forced to act,” Devine explained. “I had written a memo to conservative leaders six months ago explaining the drift of the GOP and the need for an independent voice but hesitated to make the break. But we are forced to act or see limited government conservatism become irrelevant. So we are now going forward with the magazine.”
“The vote on the massive drug entitlement had one beneficial effect. It helped us sort the sheep from the goats. While only nine Senators and 25 House members stood firm for principle, these few did make their stand and we owe them our support, especially in the face of the threats from Congressional leaders and the White House staff. But the fact that so few did muster the courage of their convictions makes a revitalization of limited government conservatism essential from our point of view. Forty-two conservative activist groups and virtually all think tanks also stood for principle on this terrible bill–and they also deserve a new voice not tied to the defeatist tone of so much of mainstream ‘conservative’ journalism. ConservativeBattleline will speak for them too.
“ConservativeBattleline recreates online the original publication of the American Conservative Union. It will be housed at the ACU Foundation but it will be an independent voice. ACUF and its board of directors will not be responsible for its content, which will be my responsibility alone, as editor of the new journal. David A. Keene will be publisher. Contributions will be solicited from the conservative community at large.
“Revitalizing limited government conservatism will be a long term undertaking but it might as well start now, right here in the first edition of ConservativeBattleline Online,” Devine concluded.
(Editor’s note: The American Policy Center supports this latest initiative from the American Conservative Union Foundation. APC was a member of the ACU coalition opposing the horrendous Medicare bill. Due to this and many other issues on which so-called “conservative” Republicans have faltered, we feel the time is now for an independent conservative voice. APC will continue to be that voice, and we welcome ConservativeBattleline.com to the fight. Property rights, education, sovereignty, limited government and American liberty don’t take a back seat to ANY political party. It’s time to remind our elected officials what it REALLY means to be conservative. You can check out ConservativeBattleline Online at www.conservativebattleline.com.)
December 11, 2003
By Tom DeWeese
Throughout the history of mankind, anytime the spark of liberty has been ignited one force or another has rushed to extinguish it. Today, in a world already suffocating under the weight of rules and regulations designed to control, tax and consume every outlet of human expression, the Internet stands as the only unregulated source of liberty in the known universe. True to form, as you read this, the United Nations is holding yet another international gathering to plot the takeover of the Internet.
Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, government diplomats and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) have gathered at the World Information Summit to discuss the “role of the media,” “acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression,” and to create yet new ways to plunder free nations as they destroy their own economies with totalitarian dictates.
Poor nations like Brazil, India, China and Saudi Arabia are also pushing to have the UN take over control of the Internet because there are dissatisfied with the semi-private California-based corporation which now oversees its daily workings. These bastions of failed totalitarian dictatorships argue that the Internet is a public resource that should be managed by national governments and, at an international level, by an intergovernmental body such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the UN agency responsible for organizing the information summit.
Their excuses for United Nations control of the Internet are typically designed to appeal to a wide variety of users. Government control, they argue, would prevent unwanted advertising called “spam;” stop the spread of computer viruses; protect privacy and beef up security of computer data banks; stop hate speech found in various web sites and (this one’s designed to suck in the Christians) stop child pornography. It all sounds so perfect, so benevolent, so well organized.
Is an international force needed to control the Internet? The fact is, private servers like America Online (AOL) and Microsoft are already developing programs to stop spam. It is unlikely that UN bureaucrats can match their expertise on the subject. In reality, spam, while annoying, is nothing more than unsolicited mail much like that which comes in our mail boxes every day. It may be annoying, but is hardly a threat to anyone.
The same is true concerning computer viruses. Government bureaucrats haven’t been able to prevent attacks on government computers. It is doubtful that a toothless UN proclamation will do much to scare off human vermin who infect the Internet with deadly program killers. The only way to fight back is through private entities which have their livelihoods at stake.
Personal privacy over the Internet is certainly a problem. Government can do very little to protect us. Users must learn not to trust others with their personal information so easily. Private companies that depend on Internet commerce will find the solution because their very existence depends on it. Government can issue rules and regulations and fines until the cows come home, but thieves will find a way around them if people insist on ignoring the dangers. Incredibly, the greatest threat to personal privacy over the internet today is posed by government which gathers information to profile users, snoop into bank accounts and track our movements. Should we now put an unaccountable, faceless international bureaucracy in control to compound the situation?
Child pornography has become the universal excuse to regulate the Internet. “Protect the children,” is the battle cry. Those coveting control of the flow of information expertly use the child pornography threat like the smoking haters use the bogus threat of second hand smoke. Religious groups are easily sucked in to agreeing to internet controls to stop such an assault on innocent children. The fact is, there are already government regulations designed to stop child pornography, yet it hasn’t stopped. However, overzealous enforcement of those regulations make a trip around the Internet superhighway a dangerous trip indeed. Fall into the wrong place and your home may be invaded by cops, your personal records impounded and your good name destroyed, just for clicking into the wrong web site. Do you doubt that can happen? Just click onto www.whitehouse.com for a quick update on President Bush’s latest activities and you will find yourself in a pornography web site. There are private companies, and even religious organizations who provide filters to place on your personal computer to block pornography.
And that leaves us with the threat of hate talk. What is hate talk? Many have been led to think of some racist diatribe from the Ku Klux Klan, or perhaps some neo Nazi skin heads engaged in gay bashing. The latest examples of hate talk, we’re told, have been aimed at those of Arab descent. But most readers may be surprised to learn that such “hate talks” aren’t the most …er… hateful, according to most UN members. Real hate crimes, according to Red China, Red Cuba, Red Vietnam, and their ilk, are words spoken against the international proletariat. In other words, talk against communist oppression is hate talk.
In addition, attacks on unions; radical environmentalism; gun control; sustainable development and abortion are considered divisive and hateful. Support of Christian religion and the Ten Commandments are radical and divisive. Advocating limited government control over our lives is divisive and counter-productive – hateful. Anything uttered pro-Israel is hateful.
Any criticism of Islamic fundamentalism is hateful. Imagine a United Nation’s committee assigned to oversee the Internet which is made up of representatives of Communist China or an Islamic nation like Saudi Arabia. These oppressive nations are doing everything possible to b an uncontrolled internet access in their countries. In fact, the only access permitted to the public in China is through Internet cafes where the computers are registered and inspected by the government.
This then is the real reason the United Nations seeks control of the Internet. It’s not worried about spam or privacy. To the contrary, it’s particularly interested in gaining access to your personal records. China certainly isn’t interested in protecting the internet security of other nations, or of stopping viruses. China is now spending billions to build a new department for its military specifically for destroying computer systems of its enemies through the use of computer viruses. What they want is control of the last free voice in the world.
The Internet is the voice of freedom in the United States. It’s the tool that has enabled Conservatives to circumvent the stranglehold of the liberal elite media. It has become a way to issue alerts to stop or expose pending legislation. It is a way to search for documents. Parents have used the Internet effectively to expose globalist school curriculum and gain access to secret evaluation tests used on their children.
The Internet is also the voice of freedom around the world. Third world people, living under oppressive dictatorships, are able to gain access to information and truth. While many Americans now forget the revolutionary ideals of a freedom spoken by our founding fathers, to those living in the darkness of oppression, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are the light of hope. Remember that the students who rallied for freedom in China’s Tiananmen Square a decade ago were clutching the Declaration of Independence in their hands as they were crushed under communist tanks. The forces of oppression fear the Internet. That’s why they now seek to control it.
Keep in mind, too, that the title of the current UN summit which openly seeks Internet control is the “World Information Summit.” Its purpose, besides grabbing control of the Internet, is to set international set “acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.” Acceptable to whom? Control of the Internet by any government force puts it up for grabs by whatever gang of thugs in control. Why is the United States even participating in such a sham? Even the title of the summit is an affront to our founding documents.
Whether or not the forces of darkness succeed now in taking control of the Internet this time, the agenda is on the table. They will float trial balloons to check the strength and vigilance of the forces of freedom. As soon as they detect a weakness they will strike.
Vast amounts of the American economy now thrive on the Internet and its support industries. Microsoft, AOL, Dell, E-bay, and others need to take their heads out of the global sand and take great fear in their future if controlled by the United Nations. Freedom groups like Eagle Forum, The American Conservative Union and the Libertarian Party, not to mention the American Policy Center, will find access to the Internet blocked as they are labeled as hate groups. Freedom documents will begin to disappear from websites.
Everyday users must understand that the UN intends to tax their activities. Those tax plans, already on the table for consideration, will be used to fuel the UN agenda by paying for armies, courts and its own IRS – all tools needed to morph itself into the global government is covets to be. Control the flow of international information and control the world.
Considering all of the ideas, proposals and schemes now seeping out of the United Nations that should frighten any freedom lover, none is more terrifying than UN control over the Internet. With such power, the UN will control the flow of information, commerce, money and travel. Imagine all of that power in the hands of the Red Chinese and the Islamic terrorists and you can clearly imagine the dark ages that will surely descend over the world in a suffocating blanket of totalitarianism. Americans must now rise up in anger an horror to demand that they Bush Administration never given in to this insanity.
