Nuclear Power: Engage Debate Mode

Gov. Gary Herbert, during this month's KUED news conference, said, "I don’t know all the answers to the questions, because we haven’t had the questions really in discussion and debate and we really need to. Over 30 states are already engaged in nuclear power production in some form or fashion and, if we’re serious about having affordable energy and cleaner air and cleaner energy production, nuclear power has got to be something to discuss."

Quite right, Governor, let us discuss it:

Just shy of 50 years ago, on 20 December 1951, electricity was generated for the first time by EBR-1, a US research reactor located near Arco, Idaho. Three and a half years later, the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant near Moscow, USSR, put power on the grid for the first time, The following year, 1955, saw the launch of USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the first nuclear-powered warship (also the first mobile atomic pile).

Atomic energy, as it was called then, was heralded as safe and clean, and, in the opinion of its proponents, would provide an increasing share of America's energy for the 20th Century and beyond.

So, what is the nuclear industry's share of today's energy market?

Now that we are beyond the 20th Century, we should ask, "How have we done?" According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), a division of the US Department of Energy (DOE):

There are 104 nuclear reactors currently operating at 66 sites in 31 of the several States. They generate nearly 800 million MWh, about 10 percent of the total US energy consumption, and some 20 percent of American electricity. The oldest operating plants are past 40, the newest not yet old enough to vote.

Their combined capacity is described as equal to the electrical needs of California, Texas and New York, the three most populous states. These reactors were initially licensed with a 40 year service life, but almost two-thirds have been relicensed and will continue producing to mid-century, at least. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received applications for 26 additional reactors, each entailing perhaps three and a half years for review and approval, followed by five to seven years of construction. These new reactors might still be producing power when America celebrates the arrival of the next century.

Other countries, however, are ahead of the USA. Statistics from the World Nuclear Association make the French nuclear industry the international leader, providing almost 80 percent of that country's electrical power. In fact, their capacity is so high they actually export n-plant electricity, and some plants close down on weekends when demand lessens.

What prevents the advancement of the US nuclear industry?

In a word, fear. We would be hard-pressed to find anyone ignorant of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, the boogie men of energy production. These were bad moments, no arguing that. However, I think the bulk of the problem people have with n-power is fear generated by liberal media hype.

The Three Mile Island (TMI) incident occurred in 1979, the same year The China Syndrome hit movie theaters – in fact, the film premiered just 12 days prior to the accident. In the film, a news crew accidentally captures footage of safety compromises at a nuclear power plant, and the operating company's cover-up. The public perception was severely skewed, as the mainstream media sided with environmentalists against the nuclear industry. The facts: Only a small amount of radioactive material was released. The public effects of the accident have been debated, but no deaths have ever been directly tied to the accident. Only one of TMIs reactors was damaged, and it was removed, the other has remained in operation for more than 30 years without incident.

Chernobyl, in what is now the Ukraine, was another matter. On 26 April 1986, there was an explosion in one the plant's reactors, ripping open the reactor building and emitting a huge radioactive cloud. Radiation was soon detected as far away as Sweden, which led to much unwanted international attention on the USSR. The nearby city of Pripyat was evacuated and a 19-mile "exclusion zone" was established. A similar zone was created in nearby Belarus. The facts: The explosion caused 2 deaths; another 28 died in the weeks of cleanup operations and the event is suspected in the deaths (during subsequent decades) of 19 who worked the site. Chernobyl's design (called an "RMBK" reactor) was developed in the 1950s. Similar designs were developed in other countries and rejected as unsafe; none were ever built outside the Soviet Union. Worse, the Soviets staffed Chernobyl with undertrained operators. There is increasing international pressure to decommission remaining RMBKs in Russia. Fortunately, safety measures were upgraded after the disaster, leading to almost 25 years of incident-free operation. The probability of another Chernobyl-like disaster is infinitesimal.

(By the way, the 25th anniversary of the disaster is coming up late this year. Wanna' bet there will be a slew of "documentaries" about Chernobyl with an anti-nuclear message that's as obvious as corruption in a Chicago election?)

The debate.

In the 2010 Australian book Why vs. Why: Nuclear Power (published this year by Australia's Pantera Press), authors Barry Brook and Ian Lowe debate nuclear power.

Brook makes 7 arguments for:

1) Renewable energy and energy efficiency won’t solve the energy and climate crises.
Renewables (hydro-power, solar, geothermal, etc.) now account for less than 8 percent of US production. The US has almost maximized its hydro-power output, and few new sites are contemplated. Solar is not yet cost-effective (though research continues), the wind energy movement really fell on its face a couple of years ago, and other sources contribute insignificant amounts.
(Oh, by the way, there is no "climate crisis.")

2) Nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited and packs a huge energy punch.
Known uranium, plutonium and thorium deposits may have enough energy to supply the world's needs for millions of years. Domestic nuclear fuel reserves could provide for the entire electricity needs of the USA — a major step toward energy independence.

3) New technology solves the "nuclear waste" problem.
Waste storage is a political, not a technical, problem and, in case you had not noticed, we know exactly where all of it is at every moment. Unlike fossil fuels, n-waste hasn't spread pollution throughout Earth's atmosphere.

4) Nuclear power is the safest energy option.
In spite of hype and rhetoric, American reactors have accumulated over 14,000 operational years with only one "newsworthy" incident.

5) Advanced nuclear power will strengthen global security.
I don't have a copy of the book, so I went to the Internet; I found nothing to suggest global security would increase if n-power generation increases.

6) Nuclear power's true costs are lower than either fossil fuels or renewables.
No two cost comparisons agree, but nuclear power costs are comparable to other sources, and would be lower without the costs of litigation and other unnecessary delays.

7) Nuclear power can lead the "clean energy" revolution.
It would be more appropriate to say, "has led." Atomic energy was the first alternative to fossil fuels for mass production of electricity. The revolution spear-headed by the Manhattan Project has now been underway for decades and, in years to come, will bring more and better clean energy options.

Lowe makes 7 arguments against:

1) It is not a fast enough response to climate change.
2) It is too expensive.
Totally spurious arguments; who defines "fast enough" or "too expensive"? These are subjective measurements, and are unfair when one must include the dollars added and years delayed by protests, lawsuits, over-regulation and so on.

3) The need for baseload electricity is exaggerated.
The EIA estimates US energy has grown about 15 percent over the last 30 years, and will increase another 15-20 percent over the next 30 years. Remember the rolling brownouts in California during the last decade? Several pundits suggested those problems resulted from millions of new cell phones, computers, faxes and other electronics coming into use in the new century without a single new power plant completed in the Golden State.

4) The problem of waste remains unresolved.
5) It will increase the risk of nuclear war.
Waste as mentioned, is a political problem, as are the risks of nuclear war. (No, it can't explode, in case you were worried.)

6) There are safety concerns.
Again, 14,000 operational years of civilian US power production with only one incident. The military has an even better record – zero nuclear incidents in over 45 years of operation and a total of over 100 nuclear-powered warships.

7) There are better alternatives.
No, there aren't; fossil fuels pollute far more than nuke power. Have you ever heard of the famous "London fogs"? Actually, it was smog, and in 1952, 4,000 died when a stagnant cloud strangled London. Burning coal in homes was outlawed and the famous fogs have all but disappeared. Other technologies, as noted, are years or decades from commercial practicality.

Conclusion:

In the small space here, we cannot comprehensively cover such a broad subject. We have not even mentioned medical and other industrial use of nuclear power. Your own open-minded research will guide your decision as to which side of this debate claims your loyalty. I've watched this industry, mostly as a curiosity, for over 40 years and I have yet to find a single argument by the anti-nuclear activists that convinces me to abandon my support of this industry.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Sound Money Rings True

I remember when gasoline cost $0.229 per gallon.  My parents bought their first house, a modest, suburban, 4-bedroom tract home, for $22,000.  My father once purchased an Olds 88, used but in excellent condition, for $100.  Of course, wages were similarly lower in the 1960s than they are today, but the point is the inflation caused by the ever-diminishing purchasing power of the US dollar.  Today, you can't buy gas in my neighborhood for less than $2.75; a house not one-half mile from my boyhood home is on the market at $350,000; and my car, a nearly-new mid-sized hatchback, cost me $12,000.

Why?

A quick historical review:

Gold was valued at about $20 per ounce from the 1830s until 1934, when Pres. Roosevelt forbade gold ownership over 5 ounces (via Executive Order 6102).  Congress then set the price at $35 per ounce, where it stayed until 1974, when Congress repealed the limitation.  Its value since then has fluctuated on an upward curve to its present $1350.  Silver's value was less volatile, being the secondary standard, fluctuating around $1 per ounce from the 1790s to the 1970s.  It spiked to $50 in the Hunt brothers' 1980 scheme to corner the market then quickly fell to $4, when the scheme collapsed.  After a slow-but-steady rise lasting almost 20 years, it began a steep rise to its current $28.

Why did this happen?  The price of precious metals reflects the buying power of the US dollar as it compares to those world-recognized standards.  Increasing government regulations, increases in union wage demands that aren't matched by increases in productivity or efficiency, the increasing amount of paper money in circulation, the government's massive debts and total lack of fiscal restraint, and other financial problems combined to drive the dollar's value into the ground.  It is estimated that, since the creation of the Federal Reserve Banks and its fiat money in 1913, the dollar has lost 95% of its value (or buying power), and few diviners of financial futures express any hope in near-term improvement.

So, we have the problem; what is the solution?

A return to the gold standard would be best and quickest.  However, until We the People replace squandering politicians with pinchfist statesmen, they can act independently from the government (what a concept!) and regain a measure of personal control over their finances through the use of sound money.

Legally known as "specie money," and often called "hard money," sound money is coinage in actual precious metals, instead of the Federal Reserve Notes (or fiat notes) that only have value because the government says they do.  It's known as sound money because it has a distinctive, more musical tone than the cupro-nickel alloys in post-1964 US coinage.  It's perfectly legal, even if the federal government hasn't used it for decades.  Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution states, in part:

No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill . . . or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . . .

Suppose, then, that the state passes a law declaring it legal to pay state taxes & fees and to transact general business in sound money.  Suppose coin depositories are organized to hold gold and silver for their clients/members; contracting with merchants to accept sound money in lieu of fiat notes as payment, perhaps via electronic funds transfer (or EFT), just like a bank debit card.  (Let's face it, paying for a $5.00 fast-food meal with 0.185 ounces of silver would be a little inconvenient.)

Crazy you say?  There's a bill being proposed to the Utah Legislature for this session that will create this exact situation.

Impossible, you say!  Quite the opposite, such things are done every day, in slightly different forms.  The manufacturer coupons you use to buy everything from baby formula to car parts are fiat money, they have value only because the manufacturer and the retailer agree that they do, but they are used in place of fiat notes for purchases.  Wikipedia.com (under "local currencies") lists 36 states and territories with communities using local currencies that can be exchanged just like fiat notes.  A few even operate interstate.  The only difference between those currencies and the Utah proposal is the source and the value:

Most existing local currencies are locally printed and must be purchased with fiat notes.  Like Federal Reserve Notes, local currencies have no intrinsic value, and no value at all (except as collectors' items) outside their communities.

Under the Utah proposal, citizens could trade their fiat money for sound money kept in a coin depository, and the ownership of the specie would change hands when purchases are made.  Except for the lack of a VISA or MC logo on the plastic card, a gold or silver sound money card would be indistinguishable from any debit card.  But the real difference would be value.  The money represented by that EFT card would be real, and could be exchanged for actual gold or silver.

Could it work? Would it really be better?

"Competition does nothing if you are already getting the best deal around," says economics professor Michael Thomas.  "The fact that there is both a Burger King and a McDonald's on the corner in my town means that lines are shorter, I get a diversity of options and I have somewhere else to go when McDonald's raises the price of their hamburger. Similarly, when currencies are competitive, you reap the benefit of a more stable currency."

Prof. Thomas continues, "A proposal allowing citizens to contract, pay, and receive payment in gold offers the promise of competition to the Federal Reserve note. Already, gold prices are soaring as people interested in hedging long-term savings against inflation are turning to the precious metal. If nothing else, the ability to pay bills in gold would be a reminder to the Federal Reserve that high inflation will drive people away from using its notes." [1]

The benefits of passing this act could be more varied than its proponents yet realize.  For starters:

1. It is entirely voluntary.  "No person shall have the right to compel any other person to tender or to accept specie currency en lieu of United States dollars . . ." according to Section 2, Paragraph 5 of the proposed bill.  Any businesses or government entity could join the movement, but none will be forced into it.  The proposal also contains specific safeguards for the industry.
2. Pres. Obama recently encouraged Americans to "invent things."  This concept isn't new, but the first State to make this work has the chance of becoming the center of a new industry.  Utah could be the proving ground, the example that others would follow, meaning Utah lawmakers and Utah entrepreneurs become the "pros from Dover," the recognized experts that teach others how to do it.
3. Precious metals are an investment, and some investments rise.  A recent article in Forbes Magazine quotes several pundits who say gold could reach $2,000 or even $3,000 per ounce. [2]  Consumers who buy into sound money with gold at $1500 could realize an increase in buying power, instead of a decrease.
4. "Stick it to the FED," is an idea many Utahns like.  It's not a direct benefit, it adds nothing to Utah's GNP, but anyone using sound money isn't using the Federal Reserve Bank or its fiat money.  They are declaring a brief independence from what many consider an unconstitutional and dangerous organization.

Like everything else in life, this proposal is not perfect.  For example:

1. It's a new business, a new industry.  Investments will be required, and there will be a learning curve.  Mistakes will be made, and some less than honest people will likely try to sneak in a scam or two or three.  Research, education and vigilance will be necessary to make sure it works honestly and to the benefit of all concerned.
2. Not every investment goes up every time; there are no certainties in precious metals any more than in other investments.

Utah is not alone.

Activist Post lauds Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for his push in Congress to allow competing currencies:

"The premise of this bill [HR 4248] is that private or public monopolies are naturally destructive to freedom, especially when that monopoly can legally counterfeit the nation's currency with little oversight.  Paul says during his floor statement to introduce the bill that the Federal Reserve is a 'dangerous organization' that 'does not allow competition because they know they can't compete'."

Paul's bill would "essentially do three things: 1) repeal legal tender laws to remove the monopoly control of the Federal Reserve, 2) legalize private mints to issue coins to be controlled by anti-fraud and anti-counterfeit laws and, 3) remove taxes from precious metal coins to ensure fair competition among new currencies." [3]

According to Talking Points Memo, Utah is among almost a dozen states considering sound money legislation.  Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Washington have considered the measures, though none have passed yet.  The website <www.constitutionaltender.com> tracks and promotes these measures and provides, "a bill template that can be introduced in every state legislature in the nation, returning each of them to adherence to the United States Constitution's actual legal tender provisions."  The Memo concludes, "This idea of using gold and silver as currency has recently enjoyed a bit of a renaissance — Fox Business' Stuart Varney and Andrew Napolitano, for example, recently debated whether the country should return to using gold as everyday currency." [4]

Sound money was the standard, in fact, the only standard, for millennia.  The economic history of America during the 20th Century is a history of increasing government involvement and decreasing consumer power.  People across the nation, and in other countries, are moving away from national currencies and moving to alternatives.

It is time for Utah to have this debate, and, I hope the legislature will agree that the Utah pioneer ingenuity which gave the world stereophonic sound, television, word processing software, the department store, the repeating rifle, synthetic diamonds and the artificial heart (among so many other things) will give the Union its first working sound money system.

For more information, including the text of the draft legislation, visit the Utah Sound Money website, http://utahsoundmoney.org/home, then contact your state senator and state representative and ask them to support Utah's financial independence.

Thanks for listening!  Tune in next week for another rant.

[1] Michael Thomas, "Give the dollar some competition," Deseret Morning News, 21 January 2011;
<www.deseretnews.com/article/700102588/Give-the-dollar-some-competition.html?pg=1>.
[2] Robert Lenzner, "Smart Money Is Long Gold, Silver, Copper, Oil and Zero Coupon Treasuries," Forbes Magazine; 23 December 2010; <blogs.forbes.com/robertlenzner/2010/12/23/smart-money-is-long-gold-silver-copper-oil-and-zero-coupon-treasuries/?boxes=Homepagechannels>.
[3] Eric Blair, "Monetary Revolution Begins with Competing Currencies," Activist Post, 27 December 2010; <www.activistpost.com/2010/12/monetary-revolution-begins-with.html>.
[4] Jillian Rayfield, "At Least 10 States Have Introduced Gold Coins-As-Currency Bills," Talking Points Memo, January 5, 2011; <www.tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/at-least-10-states-have-introduced-gold-coins-as-currency-bills.php>.

(C)2011 Baron Phoenix Media; All Rights Reserved.

The Three Sovereignties

Recently, I was talking with a friend — very intelligent, not politically active, product of public & state-sponsored schools — who wanted to abolish the Electoral College.  He thought he should have a direct voice in the election of presidents.  He seems to operate, like so many others, under the idea that the United States is a democratic (small "d") country.  His misunderstanding of this issue is common, a misunderstanding of how the Union was formed, and how power was divided among the three sovereignties that comprise it.  In light of this discussion, which I've had many times with many people, I thought it profitable to examine those sovereignties.

1.  The People

From the Declaration of Independence [emphasis added]:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .

It wasn't, of course, a new idea – both the Greeks and the Romans tried it, as did others over the centuries – but no one ever described it more eloquently than Thomas Jefferson.  He states that man's freedom was given him by God, and, that governments are created to secure those fundamental freedoms.

Among the axioms Jefferson expressed was man's ultimate and absolute power over what he creates, because that creation always has a threat hanging over it – that if the creation doesn't meet the creator's expectations, the creator can recreate it.  The Articles of Confederation, ratified on 1 March 1781, clearly proved that threat had teeth behind it.  The confederation was a failure from about day two (day three at the latest) and though written to be "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union," they lasted exactly seven years three months twenty days, until the Constitution was ratified on 21 June 1788.

In this new Constitution, the people gave to the federal government a portion of their sovereignty, a limited portion, as the Supreme Court made clear in the Legal Tender Cases 110 US 421 (1884) [emphasis added]:

But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States.  It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it.  In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the people] have not, by their [the people's] constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld.

Since the end of the Civil War, Americans who have been watching have seen the federal government expand its power far beyond those Constitutional limits.  Executive orders, agency regulations, congressional legislation, judicial activism and international treaties have sought to (and often succeeded in) usurping sovereignty away from the people of the United States.  The Tea Party and 9.12 movements, among others, were founded to re-exert popular sovereignty in the United States.  If these efforts fail, the generation now living will soon wake up to an America that has ceased to be theirs.

2.  The States

Again, from the Declaration of Independence:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America . . . do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

Perceive ye the plethora of plurals in that passage (and my clever alliteration)?  The Declaration of Independence did not create a new nation; it created thirteen new nations, each with its own history, laws and customs.  Virginia and Massachusetts, the oldest, were over 150 years old by then, while Georgia, the youngest, was just past 40.  The terms of the Articles of Confederation; the rough, sometimes hostile, relations between the States; the intense debate over the draft constitution make it clear that the States considered themselves independent nations and that they intended to guard their sovereignty.

In the 10th Article of Amendment, this principle was repeated, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That amendment does not specifically declare the States to be sovereign, probably because this was clearly understood by most of the people of the time.  To the few, James Madison, in his famous defense of the proposed Constitution (The Federalist, #45) made it clear that " the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty . . ." [emphasis added].

So, what happened?  In an article at a Library of Congress website (ourdocuments.gov) entitled "17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:  Direct Election of U.S. Senators (1913)":

Late in the 19th century, some state legislatures deadlocked over the election of a senator when different parties controlled different houses, and Senate vacancies could last months or years. In other cases, special interests or political machines gained control over the state legislature. Progressive reformers dismissed individuals elected by such legislatures as puppets and the Senate as a "millionaire’s club" serving powerful private interests [emphasis added].

If Progressives dismiss it, it is definitely worthy of attention by Conservatives, because, I think that was almost the Founders' plan.  Not that senators should be puppets of the State legislature, but that they should represent directly and fully their state governments, under threat of forced retirement, or, in some cases, immediate recall by said state legislatures, as was allowed by the Articles of Confederation, Article V, "with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year . . ."  (A provision, in the opinion of this pundit, that should have been retained in the Constitution.)

I will not say there was no truth to the Progressives' accusation; some senators in the late 19th Century were pawns of special interests.  But that was the fault of the people who elected state legislators who were pawns of special interests, and it remains a problem today.  In fact, it is among the most common charges against senators who must raise millions of dollars to fund statewide campaigns.  Where do they get those millions?  From special interest groups.

So, did this change away from the original intent of the Founders solve the problem?  Many, me included, would argue that it has made a bad problem worse.  Not only have we failed to solve the problem that the 17th Article of Amendment was supposed to solve, but the sovereignty of the several States was eroded when they lost their voice at the federal level, and with it went the State's ability to push back against the federal expansion of power.

Encroachment on State sovereignty by federal agencies continues.  In response, the Patrick Henry Caucus was organized by members of the Utah legislature and grew, almost overnight, into a nationwide organization.  The Tenth Amendment Center was formed as a national think tank devoted to state & individual sovereignty and decentralization of federal power.  The States, meaning the people, let this happen.  Now, the States, meaning the people, must reverse it.

3.  The Union

Like me, you have probably heard the famous story from John Adams.  While serving as minister to the United Kingdom, Adams had a less-than-happy relationship with British Foreign Secretary William Pitt (the Younger), the Marquess of Camarthen.  On one occasion, Lord Camarthen is reported to have said, "Shall I appoint to America one ambassador or thirteen?"

My study of history shows me that the original States knew they were too small to stand alone.  Vermont, for example, declared a separate independence in 1777, and tried life as independent nation, but failed.  They failed so miserably that the great patriot Ethan Allen actually suggested Vermont rejoin the British Empire, an act which made him something of a pariah among his neighbors.  Fortunately, Vermonters chose to become one the United States instead.

I think Article III of the Confederation makes the point perfectly:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

They had won, by the skin of their teeth, a war against the military superpower of the age.  They probably assumed the British Army was stinging from their defeat and the Redcoats wanted to regain lost face or honor or whatever by retaking what they had lost.  (The Founding Fathers would have been fools not to make this assumption.)  Additionally, in Article VI we read:

No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; . . . No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies . . .

The power to make war must walk hand in hand with the power to make peace, and so, diplomacy was entrusted to the Confederation.  In fact, over 1,300 words of the 3,800-word articles refer to war and diplomacy.

Among other major points were disputes between the States (which were many); the coinage of money (variations in specie were ruining the American economy and bank notes were seldom valid outside the town or city in which they were printed).

In short, the Founding Fathers were willing to grant their confederation government only those functions they deemed absolutely essential to operating as a group.  Unfortunately, they were wrong; they gave the Confederation too little power.  So, the States met to fix the problem, and gave additional powers to the federal government, but, again, to regulate only those matters they felt were essential.

A chief executive is one of the government operations the Articles of Confederation did not address.  There was a head of government (the president of the United States in Congress Assembled), but not a head of state — each state had its own president or governor.  From this situation sprang Lord Camarthen's snide remark.  The United States needed a "national" sovereignty so they could deal with a political/diplomatic world that had no concept of a "United Nations."

Article I gave responsibility for foreign affairs (except for ratifying treaties) to the President.  Therefore, the President is elected by the several States to represent the Union to the world as head of state.  (You were wondering how all this tied into that discussion I had with my friend, weren't you?  This is it.)  The several States had a voice the Senate; the people had a voice the House; the voice of the Union would be the President.

The power this national sovereignty does not have is power to delegate any of that sovereignty to other nations, groups of nations or supra-national entities.  George Washington warned us, "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements."  Pres. Washington understood the necessity of treaties with other nations, but also forewarned that alliances could also work against us.  The United Nations, now populated mostly by countries which don't like the United States, is the prime example of this threat, with international courts, programs advocating gun control and world-wide global warming fixes.  None of these are in the best interest of the United States, and all must be resisted as long as they pose a threat to US sovereignty.

Conclusion:

Sovereignty, ultimately, derives from the people, in the form of State governments and the federal government.  So long as the people allow unscrupulous persons to hold political power, abuses will continue.  Many have said, "All politics is local," and this pundit must agree.  Grassroots efforts created the United States.  During the 2010 election cycle, voter-based initiative caused a fundamental shift in the federal power structure.  During the 2012 election cycle, true conservatism can become the reigning political philosophy of the Union and the several States if "We, the People . . . do ordain and establish" it.  That is the goal to which all true patriots aspire and are working.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Guns and the 2nd Amendment

I have been thinking a lot about the 2nd Amendment over the past few weeks. In light of Saturday's tragedy, those thoughts are forefront in my mind, as they are in many people's minds.

The only words I can think of to describe my feelings toward the liberals who are making a political issue of this is some language I learned in Boot Camp when I joined the Naval Reserve – not fit for polite company. I would ask the usual questions, but conservatives already know the answers: No, the left has no shame, no morals and no manners. They are already dusting off new legislation, the same bad ideas they've been pushing for years, and, no surprise, gun restrictions is first on the list.

Well, here is my own personal "gun rights manifesto"; my contribution to the discussion:

The Declaration of Independence includes the following —

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

To summarize: All men are created and have inalienable rights given them by God. All governments are created by the people they govern.

I take this to mean men delegate certain rights to government for specific purposes. Among these is self-defense, because it is impossible for every person to bear full responsibility for the defense of his life and liberty in an organized society.

Logic demands that I cannot delegate a right I do not have. Equally self-evident is the fact that delegation of specific rights does not mean I abandon those rights. If my rights are God-given and inalienable, then no man – not even me – can take from me what God has given me. Therefore, the right of self-defense, indeed one may say, the core responsibility for my defense still rests on my shoulders. If I bear the responsibility, then, by extension, I must have the right to possess and use the tools necessary to fulfill that responsibility.

For this purpose, the Founders, in their wisdom, organized militias consisting of every able-bodied man, and enshrined in the supreme law of the land, the provision that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The gun is today's archetypal self-defense weapon, but any means of deadly force is, by implication, included in this provision as a tool of self-defense, therefore, the Founders said "Arms" not "guns." Were I a carpenter or mechanic, the type and use of the tools of my trade would be obvious, and control of them would be simple, if such was appropriate (and it sometimes is). But, experience has shown us that no person can know when or how his or her life and liberty – or that of families, friends, neighbors, even strangers – might be threatened. Indeed, experience has clearly shown that the successful assault on life and liberty is most frequently and successfully achieved when the victim is ignorant of danger until it is too late to accomplish any effective defense!

Given these facts, we must conclude that, since the time and necessity of the tools of self-defense cannot be predicted, the measure and use of said tools cannot be restricted.

Speaking of tools:

In December 2010, Rep. Carl Wimmer (Utah House of Representatives), proposed designating the Browning Model 1911 as Utah's State Gun. Complaints were made that it was nothing but "fluff" legislation and not worth the legislature's time. Well, I agree wholeheartedly, it is fluff legislation, and that the legislature has more important things to do.

However, I understand the value and power of symbolism and statements. Almost every good movement starts with a statement, and every movement depends on symbols to unify and inspire. Will Carl's bill preserve our 2nd Amendment rights? Nope. Will Rep. Wimmer's proposal put the federal government and the other states on notice that Utah citizens take their 2nd Amendment rights seriously? Absolutely. Will such a public statement encourage others to stand with us? I certainly hope so, because, as the ancient sage observed, "If you are the only one protecting your civil rights, then you don't have any. If everyone else is looking out for your civil rights, you don't have to."

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Republican Presidential Primaries – A Modest Proposal

I've decided to start blogging again.  I have a few things to say, and I'd like to know if anyone is listening.  I'd also like to know if my ideas have merit, or if I'm as crazy as many people say.  I intend to write a lot about Utah, things I hope would be of interest in other states, and to write about the Union in general.  There will be some changes along the way, as we see what works and what people like, but, for the first issue, I'm taking a stab at a problem we rarely hear much about, but one that we've paid a heavy price for making. It's from a letter I recently sent to the RNC:

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

I've seen a lot of Republican presidential candidates over the past 40 years I've been paying attention, and, frankly, not too many have impressed me.  Fewer still have impressed me after their election.  I want a candidate that the largest portion of Republicans can get behind and support philosophically, financially and actively.  So, how do we achieve broad-based, Party-wide support?  I have three suggestions:

1.  End open primaries.

Since I have no polls or hard evidence to back this opinion, I'll have to go on straight logic:

Premise:  The Republican Party was founded so that people could organize support for candidates that espouse their shared (traditionally, conservative) philosophy.
Fact:  Open primaries allow people who are not Republicans to have a voice in choosing the Party's candidates – Democrats, third-party members and independents.  All these, by definition, do not fully share and support the Party platform.
Conclusion:  Open primaries dilute the "shared philosophy" factor of the Republican nominee, resulting in loss of appeal to mainstream Republicans and loss of support.

We all remember Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos."  He asked Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries (if they didn't have a close GOP race), to extend the fight between Clinton and Obama.  We don't know what effect, if any, that ploy had on the Democratic race, and, frankly, I don’t care.  I care very much that it could happen to us.

According to a recent article in USA Today, there are 204 million eligible voters in the USA.
Rasmussen.com says 37 million are registered Republicans and 33.7 million are registered Democrats;
the rest are registered in minor parties or as independents.

Regardless of how those numbers have changed since that article was written, Republicans are less than 1 out of every 5 voters.  We could easily be overwhelmed at the polls and our candidate could easily be chosen by people who are not members of our Party – in fact, by people who do not like us or what we stand for.

Can we really expect rank and file Republicans to support the Party, if the Party cares so little about their opinions?  Can we really expect the rank and file Republicans to support the Party when the Party spends more time, effort and money to curry the favor of non-members over that of Party members?  Can we really expect rank and file Republicans to support the Party, when the Party's candidate isn't their candidate?  (I'll quit here, but I could go on.)

Oh, yes, one more point: "The Big Tent" – strike it, roll it up and stow it!  People who tell you we need a big tent have just one agenda, whether they know it or not – to dilute the traditional conservatism of the Republican platform.  Whenever we do that, we lose.

2.  End winner-take-all primaries.

Just as certainly as open primaries dilute my vote for Republican candidates, winner-take-all primaries eliminate them.  Here, I have some facts, from the CNN 2008 primary coverage website:

State	McCain Votes (# / %)	1st Runner-up Votes (# / %)	McCain Delegates (# / %)	1st Runner-up Delegates (# / %)
California	1,238,988 / 42	1,013,471 / 35	155 / 91	15 / 9
New York	333,001 / 52	178,043 / 28	98 / 100	0 / 0
Texas	697,767 / 51	518,002 / 38	121 / 87	16 / 13
Virginia	244,829 / 50	199,003 / 41	60 / 100	0 / 0
Totals	2,514,585 / 57*	1,928,519 / 43*	434 / 93	31 / 7

*  Percentage of total votes in this table; both totals would be lower when other candidates are included.

With just four large state wins, Sen. McCain had almost one-quarter of the total needed for nomination, despite the fact that he won barely over half of the votes in those states, while the runner-ups divided less than one-tenth the delegates, despite winning nearly half the votes.

Who is his or her right mind thinks this is fair?  No one.  The states that host winner-take-all primaries want disproportionate power in choosing the nominee, and they have it.  If this were a lawsuit and these states were defendants, no honest judge would find in their favor.  I don't want to get into a discussion of the nationalization of presidential races; I want to deal with the situation that exists at this moment.  If I were a Romney supporter in California, or a Huckabee supporter in Virginia, my vote would not have counted at all!

Now, that is a slight hyperbole.  It was cast and it was counted, but it should have counted as long as and with equal force of the vote of any other Republican in my state.

I cannot stress this too much: The rules adopted by some State Republican Parties are disenfranchising Republican voters.  That statement, by itself, should be reason enough to encourage — require, if it is possible — that state parties switch to proportional allocation primaries.

Before I move to my final point, an aside is appropriate:  Closed & allocated primaries would, as I'm sure you noticed, make it harder for a candidate to reach majority before convention.  This is not a negative to me, in fact, it is a positive.  According to CNN, McCain passed the 1,191 mark following the March 4th primaries.  Presidential primaries continued to be held until June 3rd.  These voters, too, were disenfranchised because there was no way anything they did could affect the final outcome.  I have not taken the trouble to crunch the numbers; simply saying that the 5-month Republican presidential primary season was over in exactly 60 days should be sufficiently disturbing to demand the attention of this committee.

3.  Choosing a vice presidential candidate.

In theory, the delegates nominate and the voters elect both president and vice president, but, in reality, the sidekick isn't a factor in presidential elections these days.  Was Sarah Palin a positive or a negative to the John McCain campaign?  Yes, but not enough of a negative to sink that campaign, and not enough of a positive to save it.

But none of that is actually an issue.  In fact, the presidential nominee gets the running mate of his or her choice.  (I mean, seriously, only Barack Obama would choose Joe Biden to be just one heartbeat away from having his hair plugs – I mean his hands – on "the football.")  Fortunately, Republicans have better sense and better taste, but still, is there a better, wiser, more fair, more logical, more politic process than putting any person one heartbeat away from the presidency on the say so of one person?

Absolutely, and that way is originalism.  The original Constitutional plan, as we all know, was to have the electoral majority winner as president, and the first runner-up as vice president.  That worked well for two elections (Washington and Adams in 1788 and 1792), then quickly fell apart over Adams' and Jefferson's animosity (in 1796), and collapsed completely when Burr stood his Constitutionally-correct ground (in the 1800 tie), resulting in the12th Article of Amendment.

This does not prevent the Republican Party implementing an originalist selection process for our vice presidential nominees.  Would giving the person with the second highest delegate count the Republican Party vice presidential nomination hurt the Party or the process?  In fact, I think it would enhance it.

First, my previous two proposals could result in no candidate with a majority at convention, (personally, I'm leaning toward hoping it does).  This could result in floor fights or backroom deals to get a nominee.  Either prospect fills me with dread, as I consider both possibilities among the core problems of modern American politics.  However, since the top two candidates will almost certainly have a majority between them – more likely a greater- or super-majority – together, they would control the convention.  I know they might be people who don't get along any better than Adams and Jefferson, but forcing them to work together might go a long way toward bringing the Party together after a long, hard primary fight.
 
Second, Governor Romney left the campaign in February when he saw the handwriting on the wall.  If there had been a chance for him to win the second spot, or a chance to prevent Governor Huckabee from winning the second spot, I think Romney would have kept fighting.  The same could be said for Huckabee.  Both of them had substantial support, whereas Governor Palin was a total unknown and, though she got very popular very fast, we could've had a VP candidate that we'd been watching and getting to know for months, and one which many of us supported.

Now, we all know that no one runs to be vice president.  It could be about the least glamorous job in American politics.  However, Reagan lost the nomination twice before winning it; McCain, Bush 41 and Nixon all won it on their second try.  We could remake the vice presidency into a national, party-wide priority; an honor and an opportunity for name recognition, camera time, accomplishment, experience and many other positives.  The vice presidency could become a stepping stone to the presidency, the way the post of Secretary of State was in the early 19th Century.  Check the list of SecStates who became president; it's impressive! This has a side benefit – giving the GOP a long-term perspective of the highest offices and, maybe, more continuity in power.

Conclusion:  I believe that a more strenuous process will result in better nominees.  The process I propose will allow us more time to consider the candidates; it will force the candidates to work harder to win every vote; it will discourage states from stacking up early primaries.  Of greatest importance, it will prevent states from exercising undue influence through unfair distribution of delegates.

I am also convinced that this proposal will garner stronger support for the winning ticket from Party members nationally than we have seen in the past.

Respectfully,
Phoenix Roberts