Conservative Page

The "One Man One Vote" Hoax

The press and liberal advocates are quick to come to the defense of equality in the right to vote - that is when they perceive it benefits the left.  Otherwise, to them its not newsworthy.

Several years ago there were numerous news stories about the need in our country to have each citizen have an equal right to vote and have their vote count equally.  Court decisions were made and laws were past.  Complacency set in as the public came to believe that this was a fundamental right that was being universally enforced.

The reality is far different.  One person’s vote may actually be the equivalent of two or more votes in another district.

Historically, our U.S. House of Representatives was not elected on the principal of “one man one vote.”  Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: “Representative...shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound in service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”

This constitutional provision resulted in congressional districts being apportioned counting not only the men entitled to vote, but those not entitled to vote, women, aliens and children.  Slaves were counted as 3/5ths. of a person.  Thus, if a man lived in a district populated by large numbers of people not entitled to vote, he in essence could vote for them.  Voters had greater representation if they lived in districts with disproportionately large numbers of non-citizens, slaves, women and children.

Section 1 of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution extended citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.  Section 2 provided, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of person in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”

The XV Amendment prevented the abridgement of voting rights of citizens based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. These changes in the constitution resulted in former slaves counted as a whole person in the census for determining legislative districts. Black people who were born in the United States were now entitled to vote.

The XIX Amendment extended voting rights to women and the XXVI Amendment lowered the voting age to eighteen. 

Over the years several civil rights laws were passed to make voting easier and to prevent interference with voting rights.
However, no Constitutional correction was made to protect the relative value of a citizens right to vote.  Today, a congressional district is determined by its sheer number of people.  We not only count children, we include felons who are prohibited from voting and aliens, legal or otherwise.

If you live in a congressional district with a population where two thirds of the people are non-citizens your congressional vote is three times more powerful than if you live in a district without non-citizens.  This is because the size of your district will be substantially reduced as a result of its number of people.

Understanding this type of count helps explain complaints that people were missed in a census.  Every illegal person or bum found for a census may increase the voting power of the district.  It also crates a motivation among some politicians to discourage laws that might  restrict illegal immigration. We recognize that urban districts are more liberal and more likely to be under the control of Democrats. Like Roman politicians appealing to the mob force, Democrats are dependent on the influx of illegal aliens in urban districts to insure more Democrat control.

We need to change the law so that our votes will be of equal weight. It’s time that we consider a constitutional amendment that would have legislative districts drawn up based on the number of eligible voters. If we really support equality of voting rights, census takers should be required to distinguish between those entitled to vote and those without that right.

Perhaps we should consider taking the reform a step further.  Legislative districts could be drawn up based on the number of registered voters rather than sheer numbers of people.  This would make the count easier and would insure that each registered voter had equal voting power regardless of the district’s population. 

L. Rob Werner

In Search of a Conservative News Network

Many people think that we have a conservative television network in Fox News. Certainly, the other networks and liberals generally give Fox News that label. Fox News refers to itself as fair and balanced. Is Fox News really a conservative haven or just a business with no real ideological push?

Fox News is a business. Rupert Murdoch in setting up Fox News is, regardless of whatever ideology he follows, a good businessman. In looking at the market he was entering it would not have been difficult for him to determine that television network news was dominated by people who pushed views to the left of those maintained by the American public. Where there was more open competition, such as in Radio, it was clear that the public preferred the views expressed by conservative commentators.

Fox entered its competition with CNN on unequal ground. Those who liked the 24 hour news format already had a home. They were used to the CNN format, its newscasters and reporters. Yet it didn't take long for Fox to win converts. Even the accidental program skipper could immediately notice by a peek at Fox that there was something different about its news. It wasn't so negative about America and it did do a better job in balancing news reports.

The best news reporter is one who reports the news without any perceived bias. The newscaster doesn't spin his personal views into the reporting. Commentators and news entertainers who market themselves as a personality may sell their slant because they have a different roll. However, like the press, modern television reporters seem to be unable to distinguish editorializing from the news. This is an irritant to the public who losses trust in news reporting. Fox News provides a kind of haven for those who want to get a glimpse at other interpretations of a news story.

Because Fox is the only network news that makes a reasonable attempt to present fair and balanced reporting, conservatives feel more comfortable tunning into Fox than any other news program. Because liberals attack Fox news, we get defensive. After all it is one of a kind and presents a forum where conservatives are comfortable.

Despite our wishes, the reality is that Rupert Murdoch is a businessman and not an ideological proponent of conservative orthodoxy. He has no problem in contributing money to liberal causes and candidates such as Hilary Clinton. Even Fox News is not impervious to being pushed one way or another by its owners when they have some goal in mind. Did Republicans loose the mid-term elections in part because of what Fox reported and how they reported it?

News to be truly fair and balanced isn't just presenting differing views and interpretations on a news story, it is the fair selection of the news reported. The methodology and terminology used in reporting a news event may also shape and bias the news even when unintended.

In America news typically reaches TV networks via the wire services or New York Times. In other words the liberals who control these outlets define for us what news is. Fox News like every other programmed news, starts there. They repeat what others have told them is the news. Their difference is that in an attempt to be fair and balanced they give a more balanced view of this news. The problem with this approach is that just like the other news programs they constantly beat some story fed to them to death. Directed by the news services and New York Times newsworthy scandals or misstatements are often misdeeds by Republicans or conservatives.

This is not to say that all reported news via the wire services ignore Democrat or liberal misdeeds. But those stories don't usually get the same attention. They are not repeated as often and sometimes they are given a slant or a counter attacking news story is reported. This was the typical approach when a scandal rocked the Clinton administration. The news would spread and it could not be suppressed. So the approach would be to have as many or more stories attacking the investigator or accuser as on the actual wrongdoing.

Toward the end of the mid-term election cycle the Mark Foley scandal dominated the news and was reported in such a manner that much of the public seriously believed the absurd notion that Democrats would not have let such a thing take place. Choosing when to release news of a scandal, often repeating it and limiting its scope to one party may seriously influence the outcome of an election.

The constant repetition and "debate" over what should not have been a newsworthy event, Virginia Senator George Allen's reference to a political heckler as a "macaca" went a long way towards causing his defeat. So much attention was given to the"true" meaning of this slang which most people never heard of or misused that it became a defining moment in the campaign.

Giving Fox some credit, there are times when they choose some real independence and decide to run with a story generally ignored by the rest of the media. It was Fox News that vigorously investigated and reported the U.N.'s bribery scandal in Iraq's Oil for Food Program. It has also been Fox News that periodically brings to focus the theft of secret documents by Sandy Burger (the National Security Advisor under President Clinton) during the 911 investigation and the fact that he has yet to submit to the promised lie detector test on the matter.

Still, Fox News is primarily a follower and not a leader when it comes to news and the way it is reported. If they exercised true independence they would not be captives of the liberal's newspeak language.

For example, Republicans on the left side of the party are referred to as moderates, while Democrats on the right side of that party are referred to as conservative. In realty many of the Republicans on the left end of the party are about as liberal as Teddy Kennedy and many of the so called conservative Democrats are generally liberal who have voiced conservative values on one or two issues.

The political leanings of politicians are defined by the news services and generally adopted by Fox News. Liberals running for President are often referred to as moderate or conservative while Republican presidential contenders from the liberal wing of the party are referred to as conservatives.

Another example is that Fox News and just about everyone else have adopted the ridiculous reference as "insurgents" to those terrorists setting off car bombs in Iraq. Could you imagine how we would feel if say a hundred radical Islamists set off a series of explosions across our country. Would we accept the press reference to them as "insurgents." The word is being used in place of terrorists to somehow make their action more palatable. It is an anti-war advocate's creation. Fox News has followed the crowd.

What conservatives really need are both an unabashedly conservative news service and an independent network. Ones that are just as conservative as the New York Times and NBC are liberal. This would assist in discovering more real news that is unlikely to be ignored by the liberal media. It would also place Fox News in the middle where it belongs.

L. Rob Werner

Talibaning our Schools

The word "Taliban" is derived from the Arabic word for student. In the process of assisting the Afghan's in their liberation from Soviet domination and setting up an independent government, the Western powers assisted or at least looked the other way while schools were set up in refugee camps and across the country. These schools were taught by religious scholars, mullahs, who hammered into the young students the Sunni's militant version of Muslim ideology. This program was supported by Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries with personnel and funds. The result was the harvesting of a new crop in Afghanistan, legions of militant Sunni Islamists, the Al Qaeda. Osam bin-Laden had a training ground for his army.

One might wonder if 911 would have happened if we had invested as seriously in winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim people as we did in assisting them in winning and keeping their independence and establishing their own governments. Remember during the Soviet occupation the Afghans found us as friends, and the senior President Bush prevented the Iraqi's conquest of Saudi Arabia.

It is hard to fathom the juxtaposition of playboy Saudi Royalty with the extreme - beyond puritanical nature of the type of Muslim ideology exclusively and universally taught in their schools. The Royalty made a pact with a religious devil to stay in power. They have subscribed to a formula that will ultimately cause their demise.

Our schools are in no immediate threat of being run by village mullahs who require their students to subscribe to radical Islamist thought. If anything the mullahs who teach our children are feminists and have a negative view of religion. So what does "Talibaning Our Schools" mean?

For several decades most of our colleges and universities have been captured and under the control of people whose ideology is not in sync with the American public. The ideologies being promoted are often socialist, internationalist, feminist, anti-religious and anti-American. While giving lip service to diversity and inclusion they promote class, sexual and racial consciousness and conflict.

The Free Speech Movement of the 1960s did not result in the expansion of free speech unless we define "free speech" as the right to use obscenity. It expanded the power and control of the left over academic institutions. Politically correct thought is taught like a combination of strict fundamentalist religion and hard science. The "truth" has already been established and therefore there is no need to give serious credence to conflicting views. The mullahs in our schools know the "truth" and guard it purging out academics that express contrary or challenging views. Our mullah professors are striving to develop their own Taliban. They have a religious zeal in pursing converts to their cause.

Academically, not only are conservatives, moderates and less liberal educators pushed out of the institutions but rewards and punishment are established to encourage the Talibaning process. Students who recognize the given truth are complemented and smiled upon with good grades and advancement. Those that don't adopt the correct belief, need to at least present the right attitude to survive.

The college curriculum has been modified placing less emphasis on traditional education, science, language and practical knowledge and more on race, disparity and social concerns.

This Talibaning process is now considered so important by its leaders that they have devised ways to spread it into fields outside the liberal arts. It is no longer unusual for a science class to diverge into areas of political value. Traditionally more conservative college major programs such as Business and Criminal Justice have been infused with more social education core requirements. To keep the students focused on these issues throughout their college years, upper division indoctrination programs have been added as additional core requirement for graduation.

If you think I am exaggerating these conditions, I suggest you look at a university catalog. Looking at one, I found a State University student is required to take one course on "Individual and Society." Seventeen courses are offered. Three are on women, two on Indians, six on cross-cultural issues such as diversity and one is entitled "Sociology of Deviant Behavior." Of the 34 courses offered to meet the requirement of a class in Cultural and Social Institutions, 19 are on ethnic minorities, race, prejudice or sex, a few courses on cultures outside the U.S., and courses on such topics as, Magic/Witchcraft/Religion. To meet the requirement of one course in Political and Economic Institutions, the student can select from among courses with titles such as "Power and Scarcity," "Comparative Slavery," and several courses on various minorities or non western civilizations. To further limit the actual choice of classes, students are required to take courses that meet the ethnic and non-western civilization requirements. Our Mullahs seem to have got the legislature to accept the generalized theme without paying attention to the actual courses being offered.

Despite the numerous years of our colleges pushing a left wing agenda, our society has survived. Many of the students radicalized in college settle down to real world values. Once a college graduate faces the realities of life and the responsibility of raising a family the indoctrination tends to loose some luster. However, this constant barrage of left wing ideology has its toll. Economic and social views which heretofore would not be acceptable are now tolerated and encouraged.

Ever wonder why the majority of lawyers are liberal? Could it be that many adopted the undergraduate major of Political Science. A major steeped in left wing ideology.

Occasionally the press will put the spot light on some Professor whose advocacy shocks the public. After a brief public condemnation, the individual in question usually returns to teaching with the added reward of paid speaking engagements funded by tuition monies at universities across the country. The problem is that these radicals are not the exception, they exist and are encouraged on most of our campuses. In the typical college environment there are few Republicans. Where they do exist, for their own salvation, they need to keep their mouths shut. A person who would be defined as a liberal in the outside world is often considered a conservative in academia. The atmosphere on our college campuses is often anti-American.

Citizens regardless of their personal political philosophy need to speak up. Honest liberals should back a balancing of views and true free speech on our college campuses. Americans cannot afford to limit criticism to the occasional radical professor whose proclamations get media attention. Americans need to speak up about our entire educational system. We need to speak often and make ourselves heard. This is not a one day or one week news bite. Diversity on the campus should not be exclusively defined in terms of race, sex and religion but in terms of ideas. Nothing will change unless we point to the problems every day and at every opportunity. If we fail to take corrective action, one day those anti-American and pro Marxist socialist views embedded in the minds of our youth will lead to the destruction of our society.

Not only must we continually bring to the attention of the public the Talibaning of our schools we need to encourage the public to direct governments and college institutions to require a more practical course curriculum.

Wouldn't the public prefer that our college students have practical rather than social engineering classes as part of the required curriculum? Maybe such classes as "Understanding the Stock Market,"Managing Investments," or "Personal Financial Survival in the Real World" would be a good replacement to ideological courses. Maybe this would lead to more professors with actual practical knowledge rather than Ivy Tower dogma. What a thought!

L. Rob Werner

Obama Made

Ever wonder why a long term Governor or a Senator with a great legislative track record gets little or no attention when considering a Presidential race while at the same time someone with a less impressive record comes out of no where to be considered a prime contender?

Why does Barack Obama get so much attention? He has only been a U.S. Senator for two years. Before that he served in the state legislature of Illinois for eight years. There was nothing outstanding or remarkable in that service.

President Bush referred to Obama as being articulate. The immediate reaction from the Obama camp and the liberal media was to insinuate that referring to a "black" person as articulate was demeaning and racist. Its like pointing out, "here is someone who is black but can talk." But isn't the very facts that Obama is articulate and has at least a partially black heritage that make him stand out to the media in the first place. If anyone is being racist here it is the media and his left wing supporters.

Is it possible that there is an association of people and interest groups along with the media who feel they have discovered their ideal candidate to foster on the American public? The liberal definition of "articulate" may be a person who is quick witted and can speak intelligently on issues without revealing radical views. Someone who sounds good even if you don't know what he is really saying. Here is a person they can portray as moderate and at the same time be assured that he is far to the left. Obama does not have much of a track record, so he has little baggage one can attack. His education includes Harvard Law so we conclude he is very bright. Although the press refers to him as a black man, he is half white. The press is not color blind.

Despite lack of much of a legislative track record, the left feels comfortable with Obama because of his early denunciation of the war in Iraq. Since the war is unpopular now, his early stand is considered great foresight. What makes Obama's candidacy scary is that very stand. The war resolution was supported by both Democrats and Republicans and was founded on what both the Republican administration and former Democrat administration thought was reliable intelligence. It would appear that Obama was against the war despite the fact that he believed Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destruction which it ultimately intended to use.

Was there a meeting among the leaders of the left to spread the word - that here was their ultimate candidate? They know even if he can't get elected this year, he's a young man who may have decades to hit the presidential jackpot. The word spreads among left wing organizations and passes on to Hollywood types and liberal followers in the press. Major news organizations soon follow. Dollars and publicity start flowing from organizations supported by financiers such as Soros. Eventually, even the moderate and conservative sections of the press are on board recognizing a serious candidate.

Almost any potential presidential candidate with the right background can be Obama Made. The most ideal are the young, well educated and articulate. Senator Edwards's candidacy in 2004 is an example. I doubt that there is anything that conservatives can do to stop the process of the left inventing leading candidates. What we can do is to utilize a similar process to develop candidates of our own.

With the massive amount of media bias it will be a hard process to develop and maintain a leading conservative candidate. One obstacle we face is that the same forces that present us with the Obama Made candidates, dictate to us who are the "conservative" candidates. Candidates who may have one or two conservative views are painted as "conservatives." While conservatives have reason to admire some of the qualities of Mayor Giulliani, Governor Romney and Senator McCain these people hardly fall into the category of solid conservative candidates. The Conservative's lack of a coordinated effort to build conservative candidates results in a default that allows the media to pick our candidates. We are forced to look the other way and swallow our beliefs because we are compelled to believe that a candidate such as Governor Romney is the best we can do.

In 1996 Governor Bush became the best we could do for a "conservative" candidate because of name recognition. He was selected more by default than by choice. Conservatives were not organized to present a viable candidate. Despite often negative press, he had enough name recognition to carry the day.

The other side of the problem of promotion of a conservative candidate is that if we find one worthy of promotion that same potential candidate will be the center of an unremitting attack. Would Virginia's Senator Allen have lost his race for re-election if he wasn't thought of as a potential conservative presidential candidate? The solution to the problem isn't to take a vote at the Conservative Political Action Conference after the campaign has begun. The choices we usually get at such a conference are what has been delivered to us by the media. There needs to be meetings of Conservative leaders - from the media, from financiers and from conservative organizations long before the campaign commences. At these meetings a close look needs to be taken at legislators, Governors and other public figures with good conservative track records. A few potential candidates need to be selected and then promoted in the press to see how they do. The Conservative Political Action Conference could then help narrow the field.

We need to recognize that the Obama Made candidate is a current political reality. We can't stop the process. The best we can do is to utilize the same type of forces to build candidates of our own. The difference between an Obama Made articulate conservative and an Obama Made articulate liberal is that the conservative will not use language to hide values, views or programs. When conservatives seek an articulate candidate - they seek someone like Ronald Reagan who can convey with clarity what he intends to accomplish.

L. Rob Werner

Mind Freeze

Ever notice that the mention of certain topics, persons, subjects and words has an impact on people that precludes rational discussion?

In the 1950s the media invented the word "McCarthyism" and all one had to do to end an inquiry into someone suspected of being a communist was to mention that new word. Almost like an Einstein equation, charge some topic or even a person such as McCarthy with an "indisputable" fact and keep on squaring or multiplying it and you create the intangible force of mind freeze.

Other mind freezing labels were so repetitively given and interpreted by the media so that the public immediately placed people given that label in a pre-defined box. A geneticist even hinting that there may be some differences between the races would be hounded out of research by the mere suggestion of racism. Even writing this very though down today may subject me to name calling and mind freeze. One should realize that there is a great difference between suggesting there exists the possibility of some genetic differences among the races which should be studied and claiming that one race is superior to another. I feel it necessary to say this here as I don't want to be labeled "racist" and frozen out of rational discussion. I suspect to some extent we all have to fight off some of our own mind freeze.

Remember DDT - that powerful insecticide that was universally banned? The media, politicians and armchair scientists screamed so much about its dangers and the "disaster" caused by its use that the conclusion that its use was an unmitigated disaster was immediately adopted as concrete, inarguable truth. Conclusions made were even printed as fact in text books. Tens of thousands of people died because there was no available alternative insecticide to eradicate disease causing mosquitos. Of course this is all old news and we have new causes to freeze our minds. DDT is now being legalized for use. Recent reports indicate that the study making the original negative claims was inaccurate and improperly conducted. My point here is not to present an opinion of the benefits or drawbacks of the use of DDT but to emphasize the damages we may suffer from mind freeze. If there had not been such an emotional and conclusive reaction to the first reports of the dangers of DDT people would have more seriously investigated and researched the issue. Lives may have been saved.

Times change and new words and causes are evoked to generate mind freeze. We now have such things as "Global Warming," and "Stem Cell Research." The concept of "Global Warming" has been set in such terms that it is conclusively deemed to be true that we are polluting our atmosphere to such a degree that we are causing climate changes that will ultimately result in the destruction of our planet. Those who believe in these conclusions are environmentalists and conservationist and those opposed are without going into detail - evil and despicable. Can anyone be blamed for wanting to be on the side of protecting our planet? I for one think of my self not only as a conservative but as a conservationist and someone who wants to protect our planet from environmental disasters.

"Global Warming" is a very profitable concept for the establishment left. It strikes fear and motivation in its followers resulting in garnering money and activists for the cause. Those who don't believe that it exists are usually politically conservative. This fosters the fiction of equating conservatives with greedy, uncaring exploiters.

The thinking public have a hard time analyzing "Global Warming." There is such a band wagon supporting the theory that media advocates spin just about everything that happens with the weather or the oceans as proof of its existence. Claims that it does not exist, or are exaggerated or not man made are not refuted, they are ostracized, ignored and unpublished. This zealous advocacy may have disastrous repercussions. If "Global Warning" exists and is a serious threat to our well being then we need to take politics out of the equation and study the matter rationally and scientifically. We can not afford to blur its investigation and possible cure with unfounded claims and superficial solutions.

The concept of "Stem Cell Research" has also reached the level of mind freeze. It has been manipulated into a liberal versus conservative issue. It is accepted as fact without preamble that stem cell research will result in the discovery of miraculous cures and that stem cell research necessarily has to involve the unborn fetus. To its advocates, Stem Cell research is like discovering the Fountain of Youth. A parade of public figures with injuries and diseases is presented to us advocating that they need this research to cure their ills. Again, the opponents are painted as mean spirited conservatives. Such things win elections. No one bothers to look at the current allocation of monies into the study of cures for various injuries or diseases or alternative research. Fatal silent killers such as hepatitis C may go on without much attention until they hit the right political note. Medical research dollars expended in this country do not correlate with the seriousness and damage of a disease or injury but with what the press promotes. They that can lead the press win the day.

Thinking conservatives have a real problem with making conclusions on "Global Warming," or Stem Cell research. There is an impulse to react with their own mind freeze. We have the word "liberal" and often use it as a term of war. If a "liberal" advocates something, we need to recognize that it is not necessarily wrong, imagined or evil - although it might be. Conservative and liberals can at times agree. The fact that liberals advocate a belief in "Global Warming" and Stem Cell research does not make either wrong. We need to separate the hype from the philosophy. If they are based on misguided notions and unsupportable claims we need to blow away the smoke screen so the public can find the truth.

In a political setting, we need to establish that we as conservatives are seekers of truth. We will not hesitate to express an opinion but first require a full presentation of the facts. To those who would place blockades to our thinking by charging words with mind freezing innuendos we need to cuff them back into a corner so that everyone knows what's really going on.

Next time you are faced with the dilemma of wanting to seriously debate an issue that is so charged as to preclude a fair discussion, shout out "mind freeze" and repeat it so often that it gathers its own charge and counteracting force thawing out the intransigence of those with frozen minds.

L. Rob Werner

Declaration for Free Enterprise

We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Enabling competition promotes diversity, excellence and efficiency in the production of goods and services.

The foundation of free enterprise is the right to ownership of property - real, personal and intangible.

Property manifests itself not only in the physical form but in creations and inventions. The rights and rewards of ownership are the life's blood of competition. Those rewards are the major motivation for the creation of enterprise. To sustain the system of free enterprise, the rights and rewards of ownership must be broad, far spread and not monopolized.

Optimal levels of competition are achieved in an environment where there is wide and open access to both the consumer and the sustenance of enterprise - labor, material, fuel, transportation, property and technology - necessary elements to produce goods and services.

Innate in humankind are both the will to compete and the desire to achieve dominance and control in the marketplace. Inherent in this nature is a driving force that motivates people to fully utilize and exploit the competitive advantages of free enterprise to produce the best goods and services while at the same time strive to eliminate competition.

The paradox of free enterprise is that while seeking competitive advantage, entrepreneurs seek to control all the property and limit others' access to its sustenance and consumers, thereby contaminating its life's blood. When property is limited and competition is not protected the goods and service produced deteriorate. This is manifested in the market place by uniform charges, products and services; limitation of choices; increase in prices and the imposition of conditions on the purchase of a good or service that would not be acceptable to a consumer in a free market.

Enterprises that dominate a market, seek to protect and expand their base and profit by eliminating or appropriating prospective competition, acquiring and often suppressing innovative developments and by securing government favoritism or protective legislation.

Because of the free market paradox, a free enterprise system would deteriorate without the application and enforcement of rules of behavior preserving and protecting competitive rights. We recognize that without the establishment and enforcement of rules of behavior preserving and protecting competitive rights some enterprises may expand in control and dominance until a revolt leads to the destruction or nationalization of the enterprise or until the offending enterprise obtains dictatorial governing power.

We acknowledge the need to balance our desires for a laissez faire society, a stable non-revolutionary environment and protections to encourage and preserve free enterprise.

The government's role in a free enterprise economy is to preserve, protect and defend the existence of the system by domestically enforcing rules of behavior and by internationally taking steps to insure that the nation's enterprises have at least an equal competitive footing in world markets.

Let this document be a preamble to the creation of a set of principles, rules and laws for the preservation of free enterprise.

L. Rob Werner