My latest column, on the pro-life movement’s amazing gains over the past five years and how to win final victory. Click here.

Also, pro-abort USA Today founder Al Neuharth makes a wonderful point — and stretches far across the gulf dividing us all — in a short piece here.

The Christian Science Monitor’s Linda Feldmann address that topic here, and mostly does a good job of it. What she doesn’t quite say — and probably is not at liberty to say — is that the difference between the best years under Bush and the best years under Clinton is chiefly the relentless drumbeat by the mainstream media claiming that black is white and white is black. Every day, CNN and the gang proclaim a horrible economy of shrinking opportunity, layoffs, jobs being siphoned off to China, immigrants (illegal and otherwise) “stealing” American jobs, dropping incomes, you name it.

And yet the statistics demonstrate the exact opposite on nearly every point.

Take the “outsourcing” myth. “Everyone knows” that American business is outsourcing virtually every job in America to foreign countries as fast as they can.

But does anyone know — anyone but readers of Fortune magzine, my column, and other informed sources — that foreign and domestic companies are insourcing (i.e., bringing into America) almost three times as many jobs as are being outsourced?

No, Katie Couric doesn’t want to tell that story, because it doesn’t fit the script: it won’t help Democrats retake control of Congress this fall, and it won’t help Hillary beat Jeb Bush or whatever Republican she might face in 2008.

The truth is real wages are rising, America is producing so many new jobs that it can absorb 11 million illegal aliens and still have the lowest unemployment rate in the past thirty years, and virtually everything is better than Americans are hearing day after day.

Will they wake up in time to realize it, or will they vote in the people sworn to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? Time will tell. But that’s precisely what groups like TheVanguard.Org are for.

A lot of folks are upset at the Republican Congressional leadership these days, as we surely are too. Here’s a representative letter and my response.

I am tired of settling for the lesser of two evils. From now on as a Christian, I will consider myself to be a Recovering Republican. I cannot stomach any more compromise. It is time for principle over pragmatism. I will continue to read your materials but am suspiciious of all Christians who support the non-Christian practices of the current leading Republicans.

Dr. _______________
Professor of Philosophy
________ University

Not knowing exactly what policies are bothering you, I’m not sure how specifically I can address your concerns. However, let me throw something out there kind of broadly and see what you think of it.

We aren’t happy with the Republican Congressional leadership at all. On the other hand, we’re very happy on most issues with most of the Republicans in Congress, because every year most of their voting records get better, and the number who can be considered truly conservative increases. These are good trends; and for every un-conservative thing you (or we) can name which the President has done, we can easily name 10 pretty major things he’s done that are groundbreakingly conservative, things his critics never quite remember, and things we’ve all been agitating for for a quarter century. So the problem is mostly bad communications (the President) and bad leadership (Congress), all in an environment in which the major influencing institutions of our society actively attack everything any of them do (personally or professionally) — regardless of the truth — and in which the small number of liberal (mostly northeastern) Republicans can, in combination with the large Democrat minority, easily form a majority on many, if not most, issues. (A bigger Senate majority, by the way, would solve most of these problems, because the newer Senators we’re electing come from the south and west and all vote very solidly conservative; therefore, just a few more would render the leftist Republican swing votes powerless, and the whole climate would change. But alas, that’s probably a solution for 2008 or beyond, because it’s not too likely to happen this year.)

So we have a lot of very specific problems with our guys — more than I have time to write in this letter — but we’re also very well aware of the problems they’re facing and the progress they’re making on many fronts.

Now having said that, here’s what I was getting at in the first paragraph, and something very few folks I’ve ever met have systematically considered. Has it ever occurred to you that our system is designed, from the ground up, to force compromise as the default position nearly all the time? Two houses of Congress, a President with a veto pen (one this President jolly well hasn’t used, but never mind that for the moment), the ability to override those vetoes, a Supreme Court which can trump the other two branches (and, under several circumstances, be trumped itself by either or both of the other two). And within those Houses: single-member districts elected on the principle of first-past-the-post in the lower chamber, making for a radically greater diversity of opinion ranging from Bernie Sanders to Ron Paul and making state boundaries irrelevant; statewide elections in the other, greatly containing the likely range of opinion in the upper chamber and factoring out any thought of popular representation in the strict sense (the delegation from Rhode Island has the same power as the delegation from California); a complicated committee and procedural system in each chamber which is significantly different from the one in the other House; and all of this having to be reconciled before any bill may pass.

Oh, and the parties. They’re not European parties. They have no power or means to enforce party discipline, and most of the tools available to do so in other countries are expressly illegal here. They have to raise their own money, but so does each individual candidate. Any candidate may run without the party’s approval, and usually does. He doesn’t owe his office to them, and frequently owes it in part to running against them. And yet at the same time, without the party’s infrastructure and brand name, he cannot be elected in virtually all cases.

What I’m asking you to think about is this: accusing a political party (or more precisely, its members, because a “party” in the American context is virtually meaningless for this discussion’s purposes) of acting pragmatically or of compromising is like accusing you or me of breathing. Our Constitution requires it. It is not possible for them to do otherwise. In fact, it is not wise for us to want them to do otherwise: it is that multilayered built-in necessity for constant compromise which is the bulwark of our freedom, and keeps the passions of a temporary majority from taking us off the cliff, as when Britain nationalized all its industry after World War II, or as when Germany elected Hitler.

But of course, that’s not quite your point. I just want to remind you of it. Frequently, when we get upset about how things are going, we forget these things and throw the baby out with the bath.

But the truth is this: on 90% of all issues, 90% of all Republican voters in this country are solidly conservative. And that percentage holds up pretty well even in Congress most of the time. But the party leadership (because conservatives have not systematically run for and won those offices, as groups like the NFRA - http://www.GOPwing.com - advocate) remains in the northeastern liberal establishment’s hands, the Congressional leadership is frequently scared of its shadow and bad at its job, and the temptations of power affect everyone.

So yes, we agree a shakeup is needed. President Bush is giving his staff a pretty decent one this week, which so far is looking good. We’re pushing Congress hard on a number of reforms, and if they don’t get their house in order, they’ll pay, in part because of our members.

But don’t throw out the baby with the bath. America has a two-party system because our Constitution makes that a virtual inevitability. Our founders wanted a system of coalition and compromise. This produces some annoying results. But looking globally, I’d rather face the unending problem of organizing our ranks to lead our coalition than be captive to the unending backroom deals of the parliamentary multiparty systems abroad. Its a messy system, but we can win. And I believe we will.

Keep the faith,

Rod D. Martin
Founder and Chairman
TheVanguard.Org

Here’s my tax day column — pointing out the widespread international popularity of abolishing the Capital Gains Tax and the economic boom such wisdom creates — in the Manchester Union Leader, the paper of record for the state which hosts America’s first-in-the-nation primary.

Here’s the same piece at TheVanguard.Org.

	Though we travel pretty constantly, nearly all of it is business. But Sherri just celebrated her 29th birthday again, and she pretty clearly needed an appropriate place in which to do it. This year was Quebec City’s turn, and as in all things, she did it in style.
	The Chateau Frontenac, where Sherri stayed, dominates Quebec City from high above the St. Lawrence River. Quebec is North America’s only walled city, the first permanent French settlement in the New World (established by Samuel de Champlain in 1608, just one year after Jamestown), and the gateway to all of Canada.
	The walled city resisted invaders from the 17th century through the War of 1812. While the Americans failed (twice) to capture it, the English took the city in 1759 at the famous battle on the Plains of Abraham, changing the entire course of North American history. Later, FDR and Winston Churchill would confer here during World War II, and Ronald Reagan would stay here, one door away from Sherri’s bedroom.
	Before reaching Quebec, Champlain first came to Montmorency Falls, 30 meters higher than even the famous falls at Niagra.
	But it’s hard to believe that Champlain could have imagined the romance the city offers today…
	…or its beauty just before sunrise, as seen from atop the Citadel.

And now that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are the party of government, we don’t even have to feel guilty about spending money here.
Happy Birthday Sherri, and many more to come. I love you.

“Conservatives are now the dominant force in all three branches of the government…The explanation for the conservative ascendancy is that our ideas have proved to be persuasive with growing numbers of Americans, and liberal ideas have declined into mere accumulating angers…America has become a conservative country.

Conservatives must continue to demand more from our politicians but never to despair. As Grover Norquist is given to saying, “The Team” is winning on all fronts—or at least most fronts. Moreover it is shortsighted to focus our dissatisfaction on the President. He is but one politico, and we have hundreds of others on Capitol Hill who are equally worthy of our diatribes.

…Nonetheless, this administration and this President have accomplished great things. He has made two solid appointments to the Supreme Court and has a team in place to ensure more fine conservative judicial appointments. He has cut taxes and encouraged growth. He has won victories with reform of bankruptcy laws, legislation limiting class action suits, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We are winning the war on terror and may be having a far more benign influence on the Middle East and Iraq than we now perceive. Perhaps most important, this is a President who restored a respect for public service that was badly stained (if that is the word) by the previous inhabitants of the White House.”

– R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. in April’s The American Spectator magazine.

Dear ____________,

I just listened to a “Fair” Tax proponent get interviewed on CNBC. And suddenly, he brought the whole issue into incredibly clear focus.

The scheme “untaxes” the poor by sending them a government rebate check each month for the amount of the government’s estimate of how much they spent in sales tax.

In other words, we teach every poor person in America to count on, to depend on, to expect and feel entitled to, a monthly government check.

This, added to the fact that sales taxes always go up, never go down, and always fuel bigger and bigger government wherever they’re enacted, is the best argument against the sales tax I’ve heard yet. The “Fair” Tax is the most radical scheme ever proposed for the endless expansion of government and the total dependency of the poor, even the poor not officially on welfare! It will teach them all to be “dependent” and “entitled”. And just watch the political fights over changes to the estimates and the resulting sizes of the rebates (and ever-escalating arguments to over-rebate certain classes, since we’ll now have a mechanism already in place to pay absolutely everyone).

In short: the “Fair” Tax creates the ultimate liberal society, reversing all the gains we’ve made in self-reliance and belief in conservative values. The Flat Tax provokes a tax revolt and creates a more conservative society. You choose.

Rod

P.S. Surely you realize: the whole line about “abolishing the IRS” is a lie. Obviously someone in the federal government is going to have to administer the tax and its collection. But more to the point, an enormous new welfare agency is going to be created to administer the monthly rebate checks!!

So if the “Fair” Tax abolishes the IRS (which it doesn’t), it replaces it with a whole new Department of Health and Human Services.

Impressive.

Some friends of mine published an article online today stating that the gold standard is necessary both economically and Biblically. The argument is (very briefly) that since the Bible requires honest weights and measures, our modern system of floating currencies is inherently sinful, and only gold can fix this.

Now I certainly have any number of problems with our monetary system, most notably its chief distinguishing feature: the government monopoly on money through the central planning agency of the Federal Reserve. Opposing this sort of socialist boondoggle is something of an ancient national avocation in America, attracting (with varying degrees of heat) men from Milton Friedman to Andrew Jackson to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (Jackson had the joy of actually killing one of the Fed’s predecessors, the second Bank of the United States).

But the current system is really not the point. The gold standard is an extremely bad idea. And there’s one very simple reason why.

Space.

Space is full of the stuff. And we’re finally going there in a big way. I have a friend who started a space launch company three years ago. He’s put $100 million into it so far, he’s designed the first completely new rocket engine in three decades, tested it, and launched it. He’s got launches booked with paying customers through 2010. And he’s cut the price to launch a satellite from NASA’s and Russia’s $83 million/per to just $6 million.

That’s more than an order of magnitude. He also has a manned spacecraft prototype done, and he’ll be in that business by the end of the decade.

Likewise, when Sir Richard Branson announced his “Virgin Galactic” spaceline — based on the SpaceShipOne platform which won the Ansari X Prize last year — he sold out every ticket available for years going forward within just a couple months. That’s oodles of people paying $280,000 a pop to go suborbital: they aren’t even really going anywhere! Dubai is building a commercial space port and resort, and New Mexico is opening its own commercial space port as well.

The point is, suddenly the free market is working and everyone’s jumping in. With the new scramjet technology America, Russia, China, Japan and Australia are all racing to implement (and Australia just tested their scramjet in flight again the other day), getting to space is going to be dirt cheap before we know it (no sooner than the 2020s, of course, but we’re speaking in relative terms). And there’s plenty of demand to go, and lots of billionaires already planning to build space Hiltons and such.

Now: getting to space is virtually the whole cost of space flight. Once you’re there, everything’s super cheap: it’s all about Newton’s Second Law then. You can go anywhere you want for virtually no additional cost. And major mainstream publications are beginning to note that even some of the smaller near-Earth asteroids (some of which pass closer to Earth each year than the Moon) contain metals worth more than the entire GDP of the United States.

So tell me: when we start bringing back more gold — sometime mid-century — than the Spanish ever dreamed of in Mexico and Peru, how are we not going to see a price collapse? And how would a gold standard not produce the exact same devastating effects which brought on seven Spanish royal bankruptcies in the two centuries following Columbus?

A metallic standard requires a high degree of constancy in the metal’s supply, and predictability in the rate of that supply’s growth. When there’s a huge influx, you get a disaster. And it’s exactly that sort of “rubber yardstick” which my friends’ article (and Scripture) decries.

So isn’t it time that Christians and other gold bugs figured out a better way to accomplish their (very worthy) goal? Because if they got their way as things stand, they’d be getting it just in time to discredit themselves and much of what they believe — far beyond just gold — more or less forever.

The uninsured crisis is real, and we know how to fix it. President Bush is pushing for expanded free market reforms that will change everything, but Congress is dragging its feet as usual. Read all about it, right here.

Also, in case you were wondering, Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are making a HUGE difference in decreasing the numbers of the uninsured, particularly among the poor and those working for small businesses, exactly the groups we promised would be most helped. Read more.

Perennial idiot Kevin Phillips is at it again, with an attack on Christian conservatives that demonstrates his (and most liberals’) utter and total misunderstanding both of Christians and of their role in the Republican Party. More here.

UPDATE: Even the leftists are beginning to get it. Here’s a new piece from Slate called “Kevin Phillips is Wrong About Everything“. Can’t add much to that, but it’s well worth a read.