Thursday, January 8, 2009
New GOP Chairman should remove Party from the International Democrat Union
Republicrats piece by
Tom DeWeese
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 Republic should ask the wanna-be chairman is this: Which document would you choose as the guiding principle for your vision of government – the Decla ration of Independences, 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.
In the IDU’s 2005 Declaration, issued after a meeting in Washington, DC, it 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 forever 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: http://www.anuzisforchair.com/
3. Mike Duncan: http://www.mikeforchairman.com/
4. Katon Dawson: http://www.katondawson.com/Home.html
5. Michael Steele: http://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
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
