Rogue Agency Arrests Utah Mom

Imagine you’re Annie Bradley, a married stay-at-home mother of eight. Two weeks before your 43rd birthday, its 9:00 pm and you’re sitting down with your husband and two house guests discussing a very difficult topic—the sale of your home.  Uncharacteristically, your seventeen year-old daughter interrupts the discussion with a stunned look on her face, informing you that police and federal agents are surrounding your house.  An armed Sheriff’s deputy has followed closely behind her and now stands before you asking, “Are you Anna L. Bradley?”

The scene in the Bradley’s neighborhood Tuesday was much like something you might expect to see on the big screen, or read about in one of those hard to believe mystery novels.  But for Annie, her husband Randy and their eight children, it was a very real nightmare.

“I begged them not to take her,” explains her husband.  He couldn’t understand why law enforcement was at his house in the middle of the night, demanding $10,000 cash for bail, or they were going to be taking his wife.  At 9 o’ clock in the evening, when banks and businesses are closed, it’s close to impossible for an average family to come up with that kind of cash.

So, at approximately 9:41 pm, after local agents from the Utah County Sheriff’s office, accompanied by at least two federal agents, had surreptitiously surrounded the family’s home and afterwards made quite a scene for the neighborhood, law enforcement agents placed Annie Bradley under arrest, handcuffed her, and led her the long way across the front lawn, in front of inquiring neighbors, stunned house guests, her confused and bewildered husband, and perhaps most difficult, in front of her sobbing children.

When asked why they were doing this in the middle of the night, with so little opportunity for the Bradleys to even reach an attorney, one member of the Utah County Sheriff’s department replied, “Well, we don’t usually deal with nice folks like you.”  Annie was booked into jail and held on $10,000 bail.

Annie Bradley's Arrest Photograph

While the image of her arrest might seem dramatic, the facts surrounding her arrest are even more bizarre. Annie Bradley wasn’t arrested, as it turns out, because she’s suspected of committing some violent crime.  The barrage of law enforcement officers didn’t surround her house to execute an arrest warrant because she’s suspected of some kind of drug involvement or some other dangerous crime.  Annie Bradley was arrested because she and her husband have been caught up in a political battle related to the Utah Department of Commerce.

In February of this year that Utah Division of Securities Director Wayne Klein resigned under a cloud of suspicion for corruption and mismanagement.  Randy and Annie Bradley were one of the cases originally overseen by Klein.  Earlier this summer, on July 3rd, an independent audit of the Division was delivered to the State Legislature citing widespread abuses, mismanagement, miscarriages of justice and a government agency rife with internal conflict, lack of leadership and suffering serious internal divisions.

But what does this have to do with Annie Bradley?

Well, let’s start with the basics.  A lifelong resident of Utah County, the last year and a half has been an exceptionally difficult time financially for Annie her family.   In a situation becoming all too common in America today, with the mortgage market in shambles, and the credit industry in upheaval, Annie and her family are in the middle of an unplanned move.  The guests in her home Tuesday night when she was arrested, were negotiating the purchase of several pieces of furniture to be sold along with their house.

The previous success of her husband’s small business Race Holdings, LLC—which had enabled the family to move from Springville just a year and a half ago into their dream home on the west side of Mapleton—has become a thing of the past.  With no business income to speak of for most of the past year, the family has been living on food storage, modest financial reserves, and the hard work of the entire family to bring in whatever they can.  Randy has recently taken a job working over six hours away from his family, in Montana.

The Bradleys however, are no strangers to hard work or sticking together.  Generations of both sides of the family have made a living at hard work in Utah, with no troubles or run ins with the law and no questions about their integrity or reputation.  What they are unable to comprehend however is in the midst of these difficult circumstances, why was Annie Bradley arrested, handcuffed and taken from her family in the middle of the night.

The entire Bradley Family

What would cause the Utah County Sheriff’s office, in conjunction with Federal Agents, to surround the family’s home as if they were conducting some kind of undercover sting operation?  Why would law enforcement arrest a stay-at-home mother in the middle of the night when it’s almost impossible for the family or friends to reach an attorney or to get access to cash for bail?

The charges made against Mrs. Bradley, according to the affidavits and other documents provided by the Utah Division of Securities allege that Annie was involved in committing securities fraud against her neighbor.  The Bradleys dispute the charges. Annie Bradley never worked for her husband’s business and was never an employee or manager of the company.

The neighbor, Mrs. Wendy Hendry, who owns and manages her own real estate related investment company loaned $30,000 to Race Holdings, LLC in June of 2007.  The loan from Mrs. Hendry’s company to Mr. Bradley’s company, was a high interest loan charging 36% annual interest.  According to banking records the entire loan plus interest and fees was repaid in full by Race Holdings in November of 2007.  No subsequent business was transacted between the parties.  Annie Bradley had nothing to do with it.

So what were the grounds upon which to make such a dramatic arrest of Mrs. Bradley? Apparently, Annie was arrested as part of a legal strategy related to another case being investigated by Securities Division Enforcement Director Michael Hines under the direction of his superior Ms. Francine Giani the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Commerce.  Their plan was evidently to increase pressure on Annie’s husband, Annie’s friends and some of her husband’s former business associates related to another case.

Substantiating the chain of events is a reputable and prominent Utah County securities attorney who has represented clients and worked directly with the Utah Division of Securities for more than a decade.  FCD has obtained multiple audio recordings substantiating the shocking reality behind Mrs. Bradley’s arrest, but has been asked not to reveal the identity of this attorney for fear of reprisal and other consequences from the Utah Government.

Apparently Mr. Hines believed that Randy would do “just about anything” to keep his wife out of jail.  In the recordings obtained by FCD it is revealed that Mr. Hines’ intention was a strategic decision to implicate Mrs. Bradley regardless of her actual involvement in any suspected wrongdoing, in order to bring pressure on her husband to “turn State’s evidence.”

Hines reportedly explained,

We have to put maximum pressure on people…and if Mr. Bradley can’t provide me information that would help me then we are going to charge them both   The information that would help is for Randy to say contrary to that whole affidavit basically, to say he received misrepresentations.

Annie and her Husband Randy Bradley

In the same conversation Annie and Randy were told that if Randy wasn’t able to provide the information he was looking for, Hines intended to follow through with his threat to put Annie in jail.  At one point in the conversation Mr. Bradley can be heard asking,

“What if there isn’t any information?… I would have to commit perjury to say that.”

The formal audit released to the public after several complaints about these kinds of abuses, explains that obtaining cooperation or even false confessions under the threat of jail time is a “Division Tactic” where investigators attempt “to coerce cooperation by intimidating and threatening that the person would be arrested.”

At one point in the recordings it is revealed that in an earlier conversation with Hines, prior to her company even being repaid, Mrs. Hendry was uncomfortable with Mr. Hines agenda, insisting;

“We don’t care about the money.  Let’s just rip up the promissory note.”

Even though Annie was not involved, even though her neighbor apparently did not want to complain against the Bradleys, and even though Race Holdings, LLC did in fact repay the full amount of the loan in question as per the written agreement, Michael Hines had another objective and it required that the case proceed against Annie.

According to Hines, he could charge Annie with a crime based solely on one conversation she had with her neighbor in church one Sunday.  Evidently, during a short stretch of time in mid-2007 when her husband’s business had fallen behind on monthly payments Mrs. Hendry approached Annie looking for re-assurance that the debt would be paid. In defense of her husband, Annie reportedly replied, “My husband is an honest man, and he will repay this debt no matter what.”

Annie Bradley, targeted by Michael Hines

That statement, innocently made by a spouse, in a Sunday church meeting, according to Hines, “constitutes an inappropriate statement or omission of material facts, and therefore constitutes fraud.”

The Bradleys are confused as to how Annie’s statement could be considered fraudulent, especially since her husband later did exactly as she had suggested, ensuring that his business repaid the very high interest loan, plus all interest and fees, as agreed.  The Hendrys profited, according to FCD calculations, in excess of $10,000 in six months and received a full recovery of principal prior to the note’s maturity.

Answering the question of how such a situation could be construed as fraud, Utah Securities regulator A. Gary Bowen provided a rather lengthy but insightful explanation.  He explains:

“People do not understand the nuance of securities regulation.  Most attorneys do not…we can go after these people and we have been just overwhelmed by the filings, you get into my office I’ve got them practically stacked up to the ceiling and I’m not making this up and I’ve got them stacked all over the floor so we’re pursuing them…

“I’m going to recommend you look at section 61-1-1 which is entitled ‘Fraud Unlawful’ and you’re going to discover a definition of fraud that your average attorney is going to be totally clueless about…the nuance that the average attorney doesn’t get, whose competent in real estate, competent in corporate or business law, competent in contract law, is the mere omission of a material fact… do you know what the implication of fraud is, criminal prosecution, time in jail!”

Mr. Bowen who according to his own representations has been charged with advising Utah citizens and business owners about how to avoid breaking the law for more than ten years, later admits that its impossible to pin down what might be construed as “fraud” if the government wants to press charges.  He continues,

“If you look at our definitions section, I’ve been working for this for years and read it a number of times but it really sunk into me here this summer when I was reading it and talking to someone like you, you go in and read the definition actually under 61-1-13 of fraud, and its one of those things that you say, well, what does that mean? The answer is, I don’t know.”

With a definition like this, its no wonder that Utah has become known by some as the “fraud capitals” of the West.  Mr. Bowen’s advise boils down to a simple axiom.  If the government thinks it is fraud, its fraud.

Even experienced attorneys, according to Mr. Bowen, can’t understand what the enlightened public servants in the Department of Commerce might allege.  Or, in short, all Utahans should be very careful when discussing their spouse’s integrity in church on Sunday.

As 2008 rolled around, the Bradleys lived with the daily uncertainty and fear of being charged with fraud as a result of Mr. Hines strategy.  It didn’t seem to matter that both parties agreed the loan had been satisfied and that Annie Bradley had nothing to do with it, other than being married to the business owner.

At one point Randy reveals that the stress became unbearable.

“I came close to considering saying whatever Mr. Hines wanted me to say if it meant it would keep my wife out of jail.  I decided against it, but I couldn’t trust Hines anyway if he was willing to build another case based upon a lie.”

Resigned. Former Director Wayne Klein

But this past February things started to look brighter from the Bradley’s perspective, when Utah Securities Director Wayne Klein was forced to resign because of scrutiny being placed on the Securities Division for its alleged abuses.  The Bradleys along with many small business owners in Utah hoped a new Director would be more just in his oversight of the Division and more effective at reigning in employees like Hines.

Lying, by “any person” during a proceeding under Sate Securities Laws is a 3rd degree felony.  While Randy decided against going along with the enticements of Hines, Audit Manager Tim Osterstock’s performance audit of the Division clearly documents that the Division had been engaging in deceptive practices, evidently believing that government employees are exempt from the requirements of the law.

“The division has, at times, violated the terms of its settlement agreements.  In one case, the division agreed to not publicize the action or commence further administrative actions and then violated both terms of the agreement.  The person accused told us he felt compelled to plead guilty to a lesser criminal charge rather than place his business in jeopardy defending a greater charge.  The division agreed to not seek additional charges but nevertheless pursued an administrative action.  The respondent then signed the settlement agreement after the division agreed to not publicize it.  However, the day the settlement was signed, the division publicized the information on its web page and also published the information in its newsletter the following month.”

The audit also revealed that the Division made false allegations against innocent businessmen as part of its coercive tactics, obtained false confessions and false settlements by threatening citizens with arrest and jail time, and that the State of Utah had been violating its own legal settlements with impunity while Department employees escaped criminal investigation for such activity that clearly violates State law.

With this information now public, the Bradleys anxiously waited for the government to take action to reform the Department.  They also continued to correspond regularly through their attorney with the Division of Securities and specifically with Securities Division attorney Scott Davis who works for the Utah Attorney General’s office.

Mr. Davis corresponded multiple times with the Bradleys about resolving the civil concerns raised by the Division, but never informed the Bradleys that they were in eminent danger of being arrested or criminally charged.  Things seemed to be looking better for the Bradleys, and they were hopeful they could soon put this troubling ordeal behind them.

Then, out of the blue, new rumors began circulating of the Bradley’s pending arrest.  The rumors came from the most unusual of places.  For some unexplainable reason in early August of this year, Mr. Hines called Ron Hendry and explained that the Bradleys were being charged criminally and would soon be arrested.

“I didn’t know what to make of it,” said Randy about the phone call from Hines to Hendry.  Mr. Hendry subsequently began sharing the information with other Bradley neighbors including their religious leaders.

Although the Hendrys had profited handsomely from their transaction with Race Holdings, Mr. Hines, in very questionable legal territory, evidently had some reason for giving them a “heads up.” As it turns out, Hines had told the Hendreys that they were witnesses, as victims, in the now criminal case against both Randy and Annie.

Hines, according to Ron Hendry, had been in contact with them seven our eight times throughout the months of June and July.  During this same time, the Bradleys unsuspectingly continued to hope things were getting closer to being resolved.

When Randy received a surprise phone call from his local Bishop asking about his pending arrest, he wasn’t sure if Ron Hendry was just spreading gossip, or if the strange collaboration between he and Hines were actually fact.  So, through their attorney the Bradleys went straight to the government.  They contacted Scott Davis of the Utah Attorney General’s office.  Randy explains,

“I thought we were working things out.  Through our attorney we were in regular communication with the State.  They are the ones who postponed our last meeting.  Through our attorney we contacted the Attorney General’s office and Scott Davis, the man we were told was the attorney for the Division and he acted surprised and claimed he knew nothing about any criminal charges.  He acted completely embarrassed and didn’t seem to know what Michael Hines was up to.”

Huntsman Appointee, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Commerce, Francine Giani

Seeking to defend herself and her Department, once the audit was released, Francine Giani publicly insisted that her Department had taken all necessary corrective action.   However, one of the major indictments in the audit was that Giani’s staff was repeatedly in violation of Utah State law related to how the State’s lawyers from the Attorney General’s office were being ignored as the Division pursued its own agenda.  The audit reads in part,

“[S]taff from the AG’s office are assigned to represent the  division.  Securities law states “The attorney general shall advise and represent the division and its staff in all matters, administrative or judicial, requiring legal counsel or services in the exercise or defense of the division’s power or the performance of its duties” (Utah Code 61-1-21.5).  There have been conflicts with both how the former director utilized the attorneys representing the division and the level of authority the attorneys should have in defining division activities.  In some cases, it appears the former director assumed the role of the attorney.”

Despite the Attorney General’s office claiming that they knew nothing about criminal charges or arrest warrants, to the shock of Annie, Randy, and their attorney, such warrants were indeed issued.  Randy was arrested on August 29, 2008.

After Randy’s arrest he worried that his wife would be next.  Through their Attorney, the Bradleys made an agreement with prosecutors that with Randy voluntarily returning from his job in Montana, surrendering to the Utah County Sheriff’s office, and providing the required $10,000 bail, the warrant for Annie’s arrest would be withdrawn.  A few short days later however, local and federal agents were surrounding the Bradley’s home and in almost no time, Annie was in jail.

“I told them that we had already taken care of things,” says Randy.

“I begged them not to take her.  I explained that the prosecutor had agreed to release the warrant for Annie’s arrest since I cooperated and posted $10,000 bail.  The Deputy told me that he believed me, but since I had nothing to prove it, there was nothing he could do.  I wasn’t angry at the Sheriff’s office, they were professional and doing what they were supposed to do.  But, who is going to stop Michael Hines from ruining people’s lives while he does whatever he wants?  That is what makes me so angry.  He doesn’t care about my wife, my kids, or our family.”

Annie and Her Two Daughters

So, how and why was Annie arrested so dramatically this past Tuesday night, even after the prosecutors had agreed to release the warrent for her arrest? Why didn’t the government follow the usual procedure when dealing with reputable citizens, not charged with violent crime, having no past criminal history, and just deliver a “Summons to Appear?”  Evidently, that wouldn’t work for Mr. Hines strategy.

Annie Bradley was arrested because Randy and Annie had the courage to resist Mr. Hines for almost a year.  That, evidently, is just not acceptable to the State of Utah, Department of Commerce.

It’s not just the Bradleys who have had to make this tough choice.  The pattern of unjust enforcement by the Division of Securities is revealed unmistakingly in the formal audit results, but Ms. Giani and her boss Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., have neglected to address the gravity of the situation.  Certainly, Ms. Giani and the new Securities Director Keith Woodwell have failed to reign in Hines and others engaged in the abusive practices.

The actual truth related to Annie Bradley’s arrest might have never come to light except that a number of individuals, attorneys, businessmen and even Department of Commerce employees have grown weary of this unchecked abuse and have begun using audio recording’s to try and help document this behavior.

The recordings obtained by FCD are a collection from multiple sources, and cover a multitude of cases. These recordings, and hopefully others yet to be provided to FCD by interested citizens, are beginning to serve as a powerful tool to provide critical insight and political leverage to address this rogue government agency reeling from criticisms, rife with internal conflict and desperate to cover-up its own current and past misdeeds.

Nevertheless, some bureaucrats can’t seem to understand how persecuting small businessmen in Utah (and their wives) is the same as persecuting normal families.  Some government officials can’t seem to understand how unjust it is to have a government agency justify their supposed administration of justice with lies, cover-ups, excessive force, coercion and deceit.

Annie Bradley’s arrest is one more revelation in a series of events alerting Utahan’s to the very real consequences of a corrupt government agency, the conduct of malicious bureaucrats and an incompetent government appointee—Francine Giani—who seems more worried about the appearance of “protecting investors” than she is about following Utah’s laws and protecting all Utah citizen’s civil rights.

The Bradleys have now had to come up with $20,000 cash bail so that they could continue remain free to take care of their family while continuing their fight against a corrupt government investigation.  This amount pales in comparison to the mounting legal costs they’re incurring in a legal circus that could last many more months if not years.

But, instead of heaping added difficulty on their heads, the State of Utah should be issuing the Bradleys a sincere apology as part of its first step to clean up the seriously damaged reputation of the Utah Government.  We should all be grateful for families like the Bradley’s that stand up to corruption, that work constantly to provide a good life for their children, that conduct an honest business, and do all they can–even if they’re late on payments—to always pay their personal and business debts as agreed.

“This has probably been the most difficult emotional thing that has ever happened in our lives, but we’re going make it through,” says Randy, soberly.  “Annie has said that if this is what it takes so that someone will finally put a stop to people like Michael Hines, its okay, I’m okay with it.”

In the face of America’s current economic difficulties it seems like the Executive Branch of Utah’s government has somehow forgotten the virtue of families like the Bradleys and the responsibility to protect all Utah citizens equally.  It is, after all, small businessmen and women, along with their families, who regularly take risks and assume responsibilities that creates more jobs, deliver more services, and add more value to our community than any government appointee and her bureaucrats.

Despite Mrs. Giani’s public assurances, there is an obvious problem in the Utah Department of Commerce.  Evidently this problem extends all the way to the head of the Executive Branch into the office of Governor Jon Huntsman.

Despite calls by numerous state legislators for the removal of Ms. Giani and several of her remaining staff; and despite the multitude of problems revealed in the recent performance audit of her Department; and finally despite even the personal appeals made directly to him from Utah’s own Attorney General for her firing, Governor Jon Huntsman (who is the only elective oversight provided by State law over Francine Giani) seems to share the philosophy of Giani and Hines, namely, that innocent people being wrongly accused is simply a price Utahans should get used to paying if they expect the government to do its job.

That’s an interesting theory of government.  No matter how nice, pleasant or polite Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. comes across — there is no mistaking that he was not elected to simply look good in office.  Hard decisions sometimes have to be made, and in this case, when dealing with the Department of Commerce, the direct action that needs to be taken just isn’t that hard to discern.

Tyranny, at any level, only works for so long.  What is happening in the Utah Department of Commerce is wickedness; there is no way to skirt around the issue.  A full audit of all divisions within her stewardship will reveal even more succinctly that it is time for leadership in the Governor’s office, in the legislature, and in the judiciary in dealing with abuses like the Giani’s absurd, forceful, and dramatic arrest of Annie Bradley.

This problem will come to a head and the unjust, and in some cases criminal, activity of government bureaucrats along with the startling incompetence of executive management in the Department of Commerce will ultimately cost some politicians and employees their jobs.  Someone with courage will ultimately step forward to address and correct the very serious problems.

In the mean time however, the dirty politics and renegade operations of the Utah Department of Commerce will ensure that more Utah families like the Bradleys will be trying to explain to their small children why mommy or daddy was dragged away in handcuffs, in the middle of the night.

It just doesn’t seem like America.

The Bradleys

Only an Enlightened Electorate Should Vote!

HIGHLAND, UT | 5 August 2008 | Caspar Weinberger, Jr., recently wrote an op-ed piece challenging America’s mindset in voting. He asked the question whether every American old enough to vote should be allowed to. His point:

If you are intelligent enough to read the Times or to boycott it on purpose because of its consistent left-biased slant, you are most certainly smart enough to be a voter, whatever your ultimate choice for the election.

His lament:

The truth is that a citizen who takes the time to study the major issues and reach a conclusion based on that study is definitely to be at least off-set by a voting citizen who will vote because he likes Obama’s tie or McCain’s fatherly white hair.

Most textbooks record the progression of suffrage rights as one of ever increasing inclusivity. Surely, the right for blacks and women to vote was necessary for this country to extend equal rights to all. Other steps may not have been as prudent—say, for example, amending the constitution to provide senators to be elected by the popular vote, thus robbing states of their power in the federal legislative process. Universal suffrage has resulted in many people being allowed to vote who, because of their general apathy or ignorance, have no business stepping inside the voter booth.

The Founders certainly had some discriminating issues to work through. They recognized that; and they recognized that it would take many generations to sort all that out. But, I suggest, they had a greater understanding of suffrage than we do. Many of our current woes in this area are a result of our departure from their wisdom.

Agency and Stewardship

Our Founding generation took upon themselves a responsibility very few had taken throughout all of known history. Theirs was a worldview in which man was governed by principles and not the whims of men. They believed God and not government gave rights to man. They understood very well that with high privilege comes great responsibility. Or in other words, agency implies stewardship.

The Founders treated the right to vote with great seriousness. Prior to the constitution the right to vote was attached to the ownership of property, and in many areas only landholders were allowed to vote. The traditions goes back to at least the ancient Greeks that only the truly free possessed the presence of mind to vote wisely. And they attached that wisdom to the material manifestation of land ownership. When someone owns land, he or she generally has a greater understanding of stewardship and responsibility, and has usually worked pretty hard to “deserve” the privilege of such ownership. The Greeks, Romans and others believed that sense of stewardship carried over into self-governance and wise participation in community service.

The British colonists used this method in many of the various American colonies prior to the Revolution. However, the idea universal inalienable rights exposed a side of landholding through the ages based more on aristocracy than on merit. It is evident that the Founders agreed with the landholding idea of stewardship breeding or revealing wisdom, but they feared the rise of an American aristocracy, so eventually this method fell out of use.

It is possible to see the concept of landholding and the attendant sense of stewardship in today’s society. In my personal life I wondered about this idea. Why would the voting privilege be tied to land? And then I bought a house. Suddenly, I became awakened to all the responsibilities of land ownership. I took my stewardship seriously and I found that not only my awareness grew, my ideas changed. I suddenly became much more aware of what political leaders were doing. I took my vote seriously because I recognized a deeper stewardship attached.

I have also been a landlord and I do not see the same stewardship attitude from renters. They have very little regard for property, and my personal experience with them politically is that they care very little for the affairs of the day. Even to the point that I once advised a friend that the best way for her to serve her country in that election cycle was to stay home on election day. When a person lives in someone else’s home, that person does not respect the stewardship and often does more damage than good, residentially or politically.

The Founders held similar views. Jefferson, for example, believed that:

Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bonds. – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Jay (Aug. 23, 1785)

Others held similar views. Simply put, voting rights without the sense of stewardship creates an electorate that eventually become apathetic and cynical to the welfare of their nation. One need not go far these days to see this in our society.

Spain’s Grand Invention

Jefferson also believed that “a nation [that] expects to be ignorant and free, expects what never was and never will be.” In other places he defined this as an enlightened electorate. He understood the stewardship principle as it attached to voting, but landholding held the stigma of a landed aristocracy and he wanted to move away from that stigma. He rejoiced in the attempts of the Spanish shortly after his presidency.

There is one provision [in the new constitution of Spain] which will immortalize its inventors. It is that which, after a certain epoch, disfranchises every citizen who cannot read and write. This is new, and is the fruitful germ of the improvement of everything good and the correction of everything imperfect in the present constitution. This will give you an enlightened people, and an energetic public opinion which will control and enchain the aristocratic spirit of the government. —Bergh 14:130. (1814)

An electorate that is illiterate is unable to appropriately or effectively pick its leaders. As Jefferson so eloquently explained many times, the powers of government should reside in the people. Stored in any other entity, they will soon wither to tyranny. Further, Milton Friedman explains:

A stable democratic society is impossible without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens and without widespread acceptance of some common set of values. Education can contribute to both. In consequence, the gain from the education of a child accrues not only to the child or to his parents but also to other members of the society.

But the electorate requires constant vigilance to remain stable and keep that power. It cannot be kept by mere watching of the nightly news or a quick discussion at the water cooler. Literacy is a starting point for this vigilance.

Unfortunately, the current government-controlled education system is failing this electorate, as 40% of students graduate functionally illiterate. If today’s elective system were set up in this way, how long until the government schools make it nearly impossible to locate a literate American electorate?

Perhaps if more voters in America were truly literate, we would not have had the problems we had in 2000 when so many voters in Florida were rounded up and brought to the polls in buses and told just to pick the one on the left.

Unfortunately, Spain did not let this process play out. The country eventually caved to the pressure of giving suffrage to every citizen regardless of qualification. Sadly, the great experiment failed before we could learn the result. Still, the principle as uttered by Jefferson dominates self-government: the more educated members of a society are on matters of stewardship and community, the better able they will be in holding those powers in check against the rulers in government.

Where Have All the Teachers Gone?

In 1940, Mortimer Adler published How to Read a Book. He provided great insights on literacy that have unfortunately fallen by the wayside as the country’s educational system has followed destructive models which took us away from the classical education of the 3 R’s. In a chapter titled “The Defeat of the Schools,” Adler explains, “If the schools were doing their job, this book would not be necessary.” Adler poses a few questions:

Is it too much to ask that a student be able to read a whole book, not merely a paragraph, and report not only what was said therein but show an increased understanding of the subject matter being discussed? Is it too much to expect from the schools that they train their students not only to interpret but to criticize; that is, to discriminate what is sound from error and falsehood, to suspend judgment if they are not convinced, or to judge with reason if they agree or disagree?

And this a decade or two before the real deliberate dumbing down of our schools began in the 1950s! Adler continues:

Why are these students not getting any help? …It must be because the educators simply do not know what to do about it; in addition, perhaps, because they do not realize how much time and effort must be expended to teach students how to read, write, and speak well. Too many other things, of much less importance, have come to clutter up the curriculum.

Too many other things? Indeed! Today’s system has failed us on many fronts, the most awful is perhaps the literacy question. Government schools, and most private schools I would add, do not do enough to help our children become literate. They have fine programs that teach letter recognition and word decoding; but the education seems to stop there. The schools simply do not have time to teach a student to use reading now to learn new ideas and to think critically about what they have read. Since the schools are not doing this, it is high time that such a practice become available somewhere else.

Free Minds Make Free Men

Adler, on the other hand, has been instrumental in the twentieth century in facilitating many great projects to preserve the great books and great documents of our time, including the Great Books series and the Annals of America, both by Encyclopedia Britannica. Inspired by John Erskine’s Columbia University honors program, Adler concludes his masterful work by explaining the importance of reading and learning in the functioning of a self-governing society and in the lives of “free men.” I quote at length for context.

I remember what John Erskine said when he launched the group of students I belonged to on the reading of the great books. He told us that for some years past he had noticed that college students could not talk to one another intelligently. Under the elective system, they went to different classes, meeting only now and then and reading only this or that textbook in common. Members of the same college year were not intellectual friends. When he had gone to Columbia at the beginning of the century, everyone took the same courses and read the same books, many of them great ones. Good conversation had flourished and, more than that, there had been friendships with respect to ideas as well as on the playing field or in fraternities.

One of his motives in starting the Honors course was to revive college life as an intellectual community. If a group of students read the same books and met weekly for two years to discuss them, they might find a new sort of fellowship. The great books would not only initiate them into the world of ideas but would provide the frame of reference for further communication among them. They would know how to talk intelligently and intelligibly to one another, not only about the books, but through the books about all the problems which engage men’s thought and action.

In such a community, Erskine said, democracy requires intelligent communication about and common participation in the solution of human problems. That was before anyone thought that democracy would ever again be threatened. As I remember, we did not pay much attention to Erskine’s insight at the time. But he was right. I am sure of it now. I am sure that a liberal education is democracy’s strongest bulwark. (Adler 356-357.)

He subsequently developed a study of great books from history that is nearly unparalleled in today’s educative practices. And the best part about it is no teacher is necessary to facilitate the program. Individuals and special interest groups may participate at their leisure in reading and discussing these books in a way that educates one’s mind and turns an individual on to the ideas throughout the centuries. The result is an education that readies the individual for acute discriminative citizenship.

I pull several statements from Adler’s comments that merit discussion.

• Students could not talk to one another intelligently.I challenge that if students of that day could not speak intelligently to one another, that today’s students are in even worse condition. And further that as bad as today’s college student has it, today’s adult population is so much more the worse. Neighbors live, eat, and sleep within feet of one another, yet hold hardly anything in common. Is it any wonder then that hardly anything happens at a caucus meeting or a townhall gathering?
• They would know how to talk intelligently and intelligibly to one another, not only about the books, but through the books about all the problems which engage men’s thought and action. The result of reading great books and learning to talk about them improves the general life overall of such an individual.
• Democracy requires intelligent communication about and common participation in the solution of human problems.The challenges we face today will not be solved by 30-minute sit-com solutions or by expert savior-like elected officials who claim to have all the right answers. They will only be solved when a statistically significant proportion of the population begins to take control of their own lives by becoming literate in and effectively living the ancient principles of prosperity discovered by our Founding generations. We must learn to consider those ideas, to discuss them with our brains turned on, considering the merits of the ideas rather than the typically ad homonym prejudices we blindly attach to ideas. We must patiently work through these ideas and give them time to bear the fruit according to those unchanging principles.
• That was before anyone thought that democracy would ever again be threatened.The twentieth century is known as the bloodiest century by sheer numbers in the history of mankind. More lives were lost in the name of creeping socialism and tyranny than at any other time. And even more souls were lost to its devastating effects on those who physically survived. Is democracy [read: self-government] under threat? Absolutely! And we must do something now in order to stop the overflowing scourge that is filling us to the brim.
• I am sure that a liberal education is democracy’s strongest bulwark. Only an enlightened electorate is able to store the powers of self-government properly. It will take an even more enlightenment to return those powers back to their proper vestiges. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and their contemporaries were raised up by studying the great books of their times. We are on the brink of a similarly revolutionary time of our own. One of the elements of raising ourselves up to the challenges of our times is to learn and understand the principles those great men implanted into our national psyche. This must be done before it is too late.

And this is only the beginning. Having a literate, enlightened electorate must then act upon the ideas they learn in order to be effective in restoring to them the powers of self-government.

A Test

“I believe that 100% of all citizens of a nation should be allowed to vote.” This is a great statement, one that I believe in. But rather than to stop at the period, one must ask a heavy question. What is a citizen? How can we know when someone has become a citizen? Immigrants who legally enter and live in this country eventually have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens. Among other things, they must take a test to accomplish this. The test is not incredibly difficult, but I wonder how many native-born Americans could answer these questions. Sample questions include:

1. What is the supreme law of the land?
2. The idea of self-government is in the first three words of the Constitution. What are these words?
3. What is freedom of religion?
4. Name one branch of the government.
5. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?
6. The House of Representatives has how many voting members?
7. Who does a U.S. Senator represent?
8. What does the judicial branch do?
9. Who is the Chief Justice of the United States?
10. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?

All of these questions are orally answered and none of them are multiple choice. Most of them seem simple enough, but think of Jay Leno’s “Jay Walking” and Sean Hannity’s “Man on the Street Interviews.” Many Americans could not answer these simple questions. These are topics that unless you care deeply about our country you wouldn’t necessarily know. That, therefore, begs the question: what is a citizen?

Isn’t it good enough just to be born in a country to be considered a citizen? I mean, after all, your parents worked darn hard to be in this country and to produce you kids in it. You should just be entitled to all the privileges of this nation, including choosing its leaders. Perhaps… But I suggest that a citizen is much more than just someone born in and living in a particular country. A citizen is one who is educated well enough to be a productive member of the society, one capable of self-government, one who possesses the ability to provide for himself and the wisdom to rule himself.

So, in addition to the naturalization test mentioned above, I propose another test to prove a person’s citizenship and therefore his qualifications to vote: a test of personal self-reliance.

1. Is the individual economically, politically, and intellectually self-reliant?
2. Does the individual have a basic understanding of the founding of this nation, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
3. Does the individual engage in meaningful personal civic service?
4. Does the individual engage in meaningful community civic service?

Conclusion

Mr. Weinberger knew he would take some heat with his article, and the commentary thereafter is indication enough that the majority of even those who seek to educate themselves on these matters are missing the mark. Images of blind and patriotic sheep conjure in the mind of those who have awakened and turned their brains on. But the fact is, in the marketplace of ideas, if you’re not taking a little heat from such collectivist, though well-intentioned folks, you’re not sharing enough of the truth.

Should everyone in America be allowed to vote? Definitely! If they can qualify as citizens on a much higher scale than we have required in the past. Citizens, true citizens, repeatedly demonstrate that they are able to rule themselves in wisdom by living disciplined, principled lives of self-reliance. This is not possible without literacy. Literacy is not simply the ability to decipher groupings of letters on a page, but rather a complex ability to read closely, discriminate proper principles, think critically about what one has read, to discuss intelligently, and to act upon that reading. In the political processes of our day, too many people vote by whim or by what they have heard say at the water coolers or on television or radio talk shows with pundits who know only a little more than they do. Candidates also reveal their lack of intelligence on a regular interval, showing they are hardly qualified themselves to vote, let alone to stand in their elected positions. Individuals often vote for the best looking or the most promising candidate rather than the candidate who has read and most fully understood the Constitution of the United States. Oliver Van DeMille poses the question: “How can there be Washingtons and Jeffersons today unless we read what they read, feel what they felt, and know what they knew?” To which I pose: And how will there be Washingtons and Jeffersons to elect unless there are Washingtons and Jeffersons literate and self-reliant enough to elect them?

Action Items

1. Read Adler’s How to Read a Book
2. Begin a Classic Reading course today.
3. Join a civic service organization, such as the FreeCapitalist Project, where you can associate with like-minded individuals also striving to realize self-reliance.
4. Become a real citizen of your country and community.

MRFC Principles: (2, 3, 4)

Sources

Caspar Weinberger, Jr., Should All Americans Be Allowed to Vote? HumanEvents.com, July 28, 2008.

Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, Fortieth Anniversary edition, 2002, p. 86.

Mortimer J. Adler, How to Read a Book,New York, NY, Simon and Shuster, 1940. (Note: In order to read the chapter on Free Minds and Free Men, you must obtain a copy of the book published prior to 1972. The older the copy the better.)

New Naturalization Test Questions, about.com

Oliver Van DeMille, A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the Twenty-first Century,Cedar City, UT, George Wythe University Press, 2000.

Shameful Self-Appointed Heroes

In America, we seem to be enamored with the idea of being self-reliant (and rightfully so). As we contemplate our history, we gravitate to stories of the self-made. We love tales of millionaires who started with nothing, of businesses that have been successful against all odds, and of an unlikely group of heroes who rose from oppression and tyranny to lay the foundations of America’s success.So, when Congress finds a way to become self-made heroes, it shouldn’t surprise any of us. One secret desire of virtually all elected representatives is to be remembered fondly when they leave office, regardless of their actions while in office. And, while this Congress has set a few records, they are not the kind of records that will guarantee eternal popularity. They therefore find themselves in the desperate position of having to engineer their fame by “solving” some major problem. It ought to make us question, just a little, when they problem they choose to tackle is a problem of their own creation.

As the mortgage market continues to crumble, the media (at the bidding of politicians) is quick to point out “predatory” lenders and “innocent, victimized” borrowers. All of this is simply setting the stage for the heroes to march in, slay the evil corporate dragons, and save the day. It needs to be asked, however, if the accusation of predatory lending is even accurate. Granted, the mortgage industry has its demons. But, Thomas Sowell, conservative economist and author, suggests that it was Congress that prompted predatory lending in the first place.

He explains, “It was not that many years ago when there was moral outrage ringing throughout the media because lenders were reluctant to lend in certain neighborhoods.” To solve the apparent inequality, Congress pushed to make “redlining” (the practice of not lending in depressed neighborhoods) taboo. In Sowell’s words, “In our own personal lives, common sense leads us to avoid some neighborhoods. If you want to call that “redlining,” so be it. But places where it is dangerous to go are often also places where it is dangerous to send your money.”

The discriminatory nature of redlining makes it a natural target for socialist would-be-heroes. And, when the unintended consequences of eliminating such a practice kick in, there is yet another problem for the heroes to solve. In short, the “the Community Reinvestment Act forced (lenders) to lend in places where they did not want to send their money, and where neither they nor the politicians wanted to walk.”

In a free market system, businesses are able to determine who they will do business with, what risks they are willing to assume, and what to avoid. Government intervention forced lenders to accept all comers, even when it was a bad business decision. Loans were given to people who should not have had them, and the lenders are now being painted as predatory. And the stage is set.

Enter the heroes (obviously from stage left). On Wednesday, “rescue legislation sailed through the House…aimed at helping 400,000 strapped homeowners avoid foreclosure.” After helping put under-qualified homeowners into a situation that was likely to end in foreclosure, Congress is now making moves to ‘save’ them. The legislation would provide $3.9 billion in grants “for buying and fixing up foreclosed properties” and was easily passed because it focuses on “dealing with the consequences of bad decisions and inaction and malfeasance from years before.” When speaking of “malfeasance”, however, Rep Barney Frank (D-Mass) is pointing at lenders, rather than at his colleagues. Incredibly, his colleagues will be lauded by the media and the public.

The problem here is that the heroes don’t understand heroism. Rather than stand for what is right, they choose to stand for what is convenient, popular, and personally beneficial. The Whitehouse and most Republicans were against this bill. But, at the last moment, the President decided to put his support behind it because “a showdown with Congress over the proposal would be ill-timed.” No time like the present, Mr. President, especially when the ramifications of this decision will only ensure the collapse of the mortgage market that you are trying to avoid. The 45 Republicans that voted in favor were generally “from districts ravaged by the housing crisis and some facing tough re-election fights”. The plight of one’s constituents is no basis for violating principle. Nor is the desire to be re-elected. Such moves do not make a hero.

As Thomas Sowell put it, “Politics is largely the process of taking credit and putting the blame on others– regardless of what the facts may be. Politicians get away with this to the extent that we gullibly accept their words and look to them as political messiahs.”

True heroism is about courage, nobility, and honor. Heroes stand for principle, not for issues or situations. Michael Josephson said, “People of character (heroes) do the right thing, not because they think it will change the world but because they refuse to be changed by the world.” Much to their chagrin, this Congress will never be seen as heroes by those who understand heroism and principle.

Sources

Thomas Sowell, “Bankrupt “Exploiters””, TownHall.com, July 22, 2008.

Julie Hirschfield Davis, “House OKs rescue for homeowners, Freddie, Fannie”, Associated Press, July 24, 2008.

Are My Government-Prompted Charitable Contributions Tax-Deductible?

When I choose to give money or resources to my church, the Red Cross, or any other charitable organization, I am allowed to deduct the value donated from my taxable income. And, at the end of each year, as I prepare my taxes, I am asked to account for all of my charitable donations. Turns out that I have been shorting myself—there are plenty of charitable causes that I didn’t even know that I was supporting.Every year, the government spends billions on charitable causes. And the billions they spend come right out of our pockets. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am all for charity and helping those who stand in need. But, when the government decides that they will take my money to help every cause under the sun, and do so in a way that wastes significant portions of the pilfered funds, it perplexes me a little. Not only are they robbing me of my chance to get a tax deduction for a voluntary donation to the same cause, they are robbing the people they are supposedly helping by not being as efficient as private institutions with “donated” funds.

While I can’t list every cause that you and I have donated to through government channels, I will try to give some perspective to the two major ones that were announced in the last 24 hours.

It turns out that I am highly concerned about the wildfires in California. When I took too long to pull out my check book to try and help the Golden State, President Bush decided he would exercise Executive Privilege and make that move for me. Once Governor Schwarzenegger declared 12 counties to be in a state of emergency, President Bush decided to get on a plane and head that direction.

When we hear that Bush or other elected representatives go visit a forlorn area, most think “Oh, how nice. Such compassion”. Few of us consider that when the president travels, so does his entire entourage. Now, I don’t know the exact amount they spend on any given trip, but I doubt that they stay at the local motel 6 and dine at McCheapos, if you know what I mean. And that costs the American tax payer. With today’s technology, could the president not view the damage on the news or the internet and recognize just as deeply that things are pretty bad? Would the aid not be given more quickly and effectively if Bush skipped the trip and trusted the word of local professionals who are more familiar with the area and more adept at assessing local needs?

Even if I was fine with the use of legal plunder for public good, I’d still have problems with this one. Living in a state that has plenty of its own wildfire problems, I’d prefer to keep my fire-fighting donations local. Stealing our local resources to deal with someone else’s problems won’t help us curtail the damage when our fires hit. Perhaps we should have started our fires earlier this year to ensure that we got government help before it runs out.

It also turns out that I am highly concerned about AIDS in Africa and other areas of the world. The gravity of the AIDS situation makes it easy for the government to jump to the conclusion that something must be done now. And I agree that help is needed, and quickly. But, if I was dying of AIDS and approached you saying that you would have to choose between sustaining your life and using the same resources to sustain mine, which would you choose? Well, the government doesn’t think that you and I are smart enough to make that choice, so they made it for us.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 80-16 to triple the size of PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), a product of the Bush Administration. The bill has already passed the House and yesterday, the Senate approved the $50 Billion spending plan. And, both the President and Congress are pretty proud of themselves.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del says that PEPFAR, is “the single most significant thing the president has done.” NOTHING that this administration has accomplished on our own soil compares to the free-ride we are giving another nation? Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind says the program “has improved attitudes toward the United States in Africa and other regions.” Will the same regions feel as friendly when this and similar spending programs bankrupt the ability of the American people to help out? When the flow of money dries up, does the relationship do so, as well? After touring Africa earlier this year, President Bush said he was glad for the chance to meet “the patients, including many children, who understand and appreciate America’s generosity.” The giving away of something that belonged to someone else counts as generosity?

One only needs to look back to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see that large government aid programs breed corruption on several levels. A large portion of the money simply doesn’t reach the intended recipients. That is not to say that private charitable institutions never face the challenge of corruption. But, the freedom to discriminate between which people and projects one chooses to fund (a freedom that the government doesn’t feel that it has) tends to filter out many of the free loaders.

The Bible says that man should not give “grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7) I think that the only thing that would make me a “cheerful giver” would be if the giving wasn’t forced.

Please don’t take this all to mean that I (or other capitalists) don’t care about human suffering and world problems. I care deeply. I care so much that I am willing to see that solutions are created and administered in ways that don’t violate principle and actually work. Violation of principle will never bring sustainable relief to any situation, no matter how grave and urgent the situation appears. And government spending on relief programs, foreign or domestic, is a violation of principle.

Sources:

Juliana Barbassa, “Bush set to survey Northern California wildfires”, Associated Press, Thu Jul 17, 2008 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_re_us/wildfires)

Jim Abrams, “Senate agrees to triple anti-AIDS funding”, Associated Press, Thu Jul 16, 2008 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jb7JQ6VIFJu7UQB0ElCfWnkvUAGwD91V8JQ00)

Hope Yen, “Corruption: Katrina Fraud Ballooning Past $1 Billion”, NY Transfer News, Associated Press, Dec 25, 2006 (http://www.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20061225/054855.html)

How Do You Celebrate Independence?

HIGHLAND, UT | 4 July 2008 | Ah! The Fourth of July! That great mid-summer holiday. Full of parades and beauty pageants, fireworks, barbecues, 10k races, pancake breakfasts in the park, and flag raising ceremonies. This is what this holiday is all about, right? Oh, and thinking about the signing of the Declaration of Independence (whatever that is). I sure am glad those guys did that in summertime so we could have such an awesome party.

Independence Day is also a day to reflect. Do we recognize the price our Founders paid to win their independence? Do we know of the struggle leading up to that great event? What do we know about those men? Do we buy in to the image so prevalent today that they were philandering old men or have we done our homework and recognize their virtue? Do we just spend our day lounging around, getting drunk, and exercising the inner urge to blow things up?

The Founders started a revolution, but they did not complete it. They recognized it would take many generations to complete what they started. Yes, they were able to validate their declaration of political sovereignty; but their revolution was so much more. They subsequently created a government to transcend the ages, one which had never been tried before. One which honored the individual and allowed the individual to govern himself.

The Founders revolution included three areas. The first, most well-known is the political revolution, discussed above. The basic premise is that man is able to govern himself and doesn’t need a king or elected officials to tell him what to think and how to act. How are you doing? Do you govern yourself or do you allow others (political leaders, bosses, Kommissars*, etc.) to control your life? Second, this revolution was one of religious freedom, or freedom of conscience. Finally, to be a citizen of a nation an individual did not have to be the member of a certain church. He could choose for himself, according to the personal belief system within his own mind. The third portion of the revolution is economic. Through capitalism people can freely exchange with one another, individuals can do more than just live paycheck to paycheck. They are free to discover their life’s missions and to pursue those with that same freedom of conscience and to strive to leave the world better than when they entered it.

This revolution—all three portions of it—are not intended only as a collective revolution; it is a personal revolution. So how are you doing? Do you understand the purpose of the revolution? Do you live the revolution, or are you just living paycheck to paycheck, getting up when others say you should, going places others say you should, thinking the ideas others say you should? Or do you practice your own autonomy? Are you actively engaged in a personal revolution? Do you celebrate independence all year long, or is it a 0.27% of the year?

MRFC Principle:

*German spelling used intentionally for effect.

Solving the Problem (of the Brain Off Conspiracy)

SALT LAKE CITY, UT | 2 July 2008 | Once, when working as a nighttime security guard for a hotel, I was called to take care of a “small water problem” in a guest room. When I arrived at the room, it was obvious that the guests had had a little too much to drink. They had started filling the tub and then left the room. Returning hours later, they found water gushing under their door. From in the hallway, I could see that they had been using towels to try and mop up the water, but weren’t having much success. Once I entered the room, it was obvious why—in their drunken state, none of them had yet thought to turn the water off. They had spent valuable time trying to solve the problem without ever looking to the source of that problem. And there was no way that they would ever be able to keep up or even gain any ground. When all was said and done, they had extensively damaged their room and the corresponding rooms on the floors below them. It was a great example of the trickle-down effects of a bad decision and of even worse problem solving skills.In his recent article, “Should Congress Make Talk Radio Fair”, Rick Koerber says that the “[Brain-Off Conspiracy, or BOC] sees contradictory ideas as threats”, meaning they feel threatened by ideas that oppose their own. The irony is that the BOC spends most of it’s time proposing and supporting ideas that, in essence, contradict themselves. They create solutions that not only fail to solve perceived problems, but generally damage the programs they are meant to fix. A quick and seemingly unrelated story should illustrate the point nicely:

A friend of mine in Chicago coaches a little league team. In the name of being fair, the league has come up with some rules to see that everyone has a chance and that no one has the upper hand. The rules dictate that no one can pitch for more than 2 innings; that no one can be left in the outfield for more than 2 innings in a row; and so on. He says that managing a team of 12 players to fill all 9 positions without breaking any of the “fairness” rules is virtually impossible. He actually had to purchase a computer algorithm program to figure it all out. They’ve quite effectively lost every game. And worse than that, he has had to deal with numerous accidents caused by putting little Johnny or Sally at first base position when they weren’t talented enough to handle that position. To top it off, the parents that came up with the rules lash out at him for not protecting their precious little children. How many kids will be hurt before some parent files a lawsuit? Following their rules endangered children and took all of the fun out of being involved in baseball. But, at least everyone gets to play.

While little league baseball is not the most pressing issue in the news today, the pattern of self-destructive solutions is reflective of the pattern seen in policies meant to handle major national and global issues. People blindly rally behind pet issues and waste their resources fighting for solutions without ever checking if those solutions solve anything.

When I first heard Rick Koerber describe those who make decisions without regard to principles as the “Brain-Off Conspiracy”, I thought it was a little harsh. It struck me the way that most of Ann Coulter’s columns strike me. I could agree with most of what either of them had to say, but felt that the approach was not very compassionate. I guess I wanted them to find a more politically correct way to share their message. Boy, was I brain-off!

Conclusion

While I don’t think that rudeness is a justified approach in any battle, nor will it solve problems, my studies in principles have led me to believe that my genteel, keep-everybody-happy approach won’t solve anything either. When something is dangerously stupid, we aren’t doing anybody any favors by helping them feel comfortable with it. Indeed, I have come to believe that it is the duty of those who are Brain-On to alert others to the contradictory and self-destructive nature of their ways. Not everyone who currently supports the BOC is a full-blown, card-carrying activist member. But whether someone is intentionally in that camp or simply there because they don’t know where else to go, the danger of their stupidities will hurt them. And us.

In the words of the great C.S. Lewis,

I do not think all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road. A sum can be put right: but only by going back until you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on. Evil can be undone, but it cannot ‘develop’ into good. (Preface to The Great Divorce).

So, the question is this: How do you help someone who doesn’t realize that there is a problem? How do you change someone who is so intoxicated by the allure of “helping” clean up the water that they don’t realize the tap is still running?

Action Items

1. Read or re-read Rick Koerber’s article, “Brain-Off Conspiracy”.
2. Take a serious look at some of your own “pet issues”. Major issues have purposefully been left out of this article so that you can think through a few that are important to you.
3. Spend some time journaling the principles involved in those issues. Do the major solutions being proposed in society properly deal with those principles?
4. Consider how you would approach the same issue from a principle-based standpoint.
5. Then consider how you could help others see that your solution would solve the problem at the source, rather than just replace it with another problem?

Sources

C. Rick Koerber, Should Congress Make Talk Radio Fair? FreeCapitalist Daily, March 11, 2008.

C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, 1946

Happy Canada Day from an American Patriot

SALT LAKE CITY, UT | 1 July 2008 | When people hear that I am Canadian, they often ask questions about whether or not I would consider becoming an American. Ironically, I am a citizen of the U.S.A. by birth—my mother is American and my family came from Canada when I was still a minor. Similar to an “army brat”, I was considered an “American Citizen born abroad”.But the question has often caused me to reflect a little. Would I willingly exchange my Canadian citizenship and heritage for a paper that declares me American? Up until the past few years, I didn’t really think it mattered. Even the people asking if I want to become American tend to preface the question by saying that “it really doesn’t matter, but…”

Canada acquired its freedom through a paperwork process. There was no battle, no revolution, and little change in the life of the average citizen. Canadians will tell you that they value their freedom, but most couldn’t really define their freedom. In similar fashion, not having had to fight for American citizenship, I wonder if I value it the way that I should. Do I really understand what has been given me, and do I act as proper steward over the gift that I have been given? Do any of us who haven’t physically fought for and completely dedicated our time, talents, and resources to the cause of freedom fully understand what freedom is, why it is so important to our happiness, and what we need to do to safeguard it? I would wager that we don’t yet understand it. Even those of us who have studied long and hard to know the Founding Fathers and the truths that motivated them only bear a theoretical knowledge of what freedom really meant to them. I guess you get what you pay for. And, as most of us have paid little or nothing for our freedom, we don’t yet “get it”.

Over the past two years, I have had my eyes opened. I have been privileged to stumble upon the truths that bolster our American freedoms—truths that will guarantee freedom to any nation that chooses to actively live by them. I have learned how those truths are simple, yet their effects are profound. I have experienced that the more fully we commit ourselves to those truths, the more freedom we experience in all areas of our lives, regardless of the political climate that surrounds us. I have learned that my American citizenship does matter. It is citizenship in the only nation on earth that has a government based on documents that identify, define, and defend those very truths. While I am always free to control my thoughts and attitude (and can thereby experience a level of freedom in any political climate), living in the only country on earth that fully fosters that freedom is a huge privilege and blessing. In the words of John Wayne, “I do think we have a pretty wonderful country, and I thank God that He chose me to live here.”

The Founding Fathers saw citizenship as more than land ownership or occupancy of a space within a nation. They saw it as a commitment, a willingness to do whatever was needed to further the cause in which they participated. Today, we seem to have forgotten that cause all together, and view our citizenship as a squatter’s right. We believe that our mere presence, rather than our contributions, qualifies us as citizens. In large part, we have become moochers. We enjoy the fruits without considering the labors.

Conclusion

Every July 1, I still celebrate Canada Day with my family—not so much because it’s a part of my heritage, but because Canada is another free nation, a nation whose people are welcome to worship as they please, to engage in business with limited interference, and to own and control their own property. And that is worth celebrating. Sure, Canada has socialistic tendencies in government, health care, and everyday life (as do we). But, in looking at world societies today, outside of our own borders, no one comes closer to enjoying their God-given rights the way that that God intended than our neighbors to the north.

I’m grateful for my Canadian heritage. It gives me a unique perspective through which I can more fully understand the value of my American citizenship. When asked if I would consider becoming an American citizen, the answer is simple—I’m working on that everyday.

Action Items

1. Find someone who has relinquished their citizenship in another country to become an American citizen. Ask that person what it was that caused them to make that change.
2. Ask them how their life and perspective have changed since becoming a citizen.
3. Ask them what the process was like to become an American.
4. Take a sample citizenship quiz.
5. Spend some time between now and Independence Day defining what citizenship really means. Determine what changes need to happen in your thoughts, commitments, and actions if you want to be considered a truly patriotic citizen.

Congressman Chris Cannon vs. Challenger Jason Chaffetz

Freedom and Prosperity in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District

Alpine, UT | June 23, 2008| It’s time to vote. Tomorrow, Utahan’s will once again have an opportunity to send a political message to the country. It’s this capitalist’s hope that tomorrow-before we vote-we might all remember to “wake-up” and “turn our brains on” as I remind my radio listeners everyday at the beginning of my AM talk show.

The question before voters in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District is who to nominate for the Republican ticket. Once the emotion of a closely contested election is appropriately set aside, the thoughtful choice is obvious.

Having spent significant one-on-one face time with each of the candidates, it is my firm judgment that Congressman Chris Cannon is the superior choice. He is a leader, a teacher, and the best Representative for Utah’s 3rd Congressional District. Mr. Chaffetz, as ambitious, capable, and clever spoken as he is, is still an aspiring student in the fight for freedom, prosperity and peace.

While there is still a general election in November, for all practical purposes, the winner of tomorrow’s contest among Republicans will head to Washington as a member of the newest Congress and once all the campaign adrenaline subsides, there is no rational reason for Utah Republican’s to abandon Representative Chris Cannon. There are several obvious reasons to support him, and electing his contender, Mr. Chaffetz, will only weaken the Republican cause.

While the nuances of debate could go on and on, these three overarching arguments create a simple framework for clearly making the best decision for Republicans in the primary election tomorrow.

Argument #1 – There is no rational reason to abandon Representative Cannon.

Republicans, and conservatives more particularly, are reeling from poorly executed political strategies over the last several years. The Democrats currently control both branches of the US Congress, a majority of state governorships and a plurality of state legislatures. In national polls Barack Obama is currently polling at 15 points ahead of Republican John McCain. At a time like this, should Republicans in Utah be looking to change horses in the middle of the battle?

Congressman Cannon has earned one of the most conservative voting records in the entire Congress by think tanks, media surveys, and independent vote tracking organizations alike. He has received the strong endorsements of Republican leaders both nationally and locally (both Utah Senators Hatch and Bennett have been extremely generous and complimentary of Cannon). These endorsements don’t come easy or without consequence. Republicans in Utah might consider if they have a specific reason that bests these recommendations when viewed alongside Congressman Cannon’s actual voting record.

What are the supposed “deal breakers” that his challenger suggests would justify Utahan’s abandoning Cannon?

Challenger Jason Chaffetz offers four key points for Utahan’s to consider.

1. Immigration

Many Republicans rightly consider illegal immigration a hot-button issue. Chaffetz criticizes Cannon for his supposed failures – but what are they actually? I had the opportunity to visit personally with Mr. Chaffetz, and when pressed, his argument boiled down to an example where Congressman Cannon missed one of perhaps twenty immigration related votes. This supposedly demonstrates, according to Chaffetz, that Cannon doesn’t really want to solve the immigration problem.

The funny thing about this argument however, is that if you were to ask one hundred registered Republicans what the vote was, and what policy was so critical that missing the vote would cost him his seat – I’ll wager that not one could accurately respond.

While most of the registered Republicans voting in tomorrow’s election would find it difficult to describe (even after a diligent effort by the Chaffetz campaign) the actual policy differences between the candidates, the deeper questions are even more pointedly in Cannon’s favor.

Consider, Chaffetz is claiming to take a “harder” stand on sending “illegals” back to their country of origin. Okay. But, this is easy political rhetoric that scores points with the frustrated right wing of the party- but ironically-when pressed for details about how to accomplish this hard line approach, Chaffetz fails to demonstrate a) that he has a specific plan, b) that he has any strategy with a realistic chance of rallying other Republicans to his position; or, c) that having Cannon back home here in Utah while Chaffetz is in D.C. touting his highly abstract-even if pleasant-solutions to his congressional colleagues would have any more of a realistic chance for legislative progress than we’ve had so far.

To make the point more clearly, there is a difference between Mr. Chaffetz stating a principled answer to a policy question on immigration (which position I tend to agree with by the way) and actually knowing what to do about it. Governing-Republicans must not forget-is about more than the “right answers.” Getting things done in Washington takes more than articulate speech making, it takes leadership- and that is precisely what Utah would be loosing by abandoning Mr. Cannon.

Now, to get even more to the point. Even if Utahan’s were to consider Cannon’s performance on immigration poor- as Chaffetz suggests-the real question is, does unseating one of the most Conservative voting Congressmen in a Democratically controlled Congress increase or decrease the likelihood of real immigration reform happening in the near future? The answer is obvious.

2. Defense

This is perhaps one of Chaffetz’s most disappointing arguments. While suggesting that national defense is a serious issue to which he brings a more sound policy approach-Chaffetz fails, during direct questioning, to identify one single policy difference between his proposed course and Cannon’s actual record.

Chaffetz does decry issues such as poor health care and education benefits for veterans. However, when pressed, Chaffetz even admits he was completely unaware of the significant debate going on right now in the Congress over the new G.I. Bill passed last week by Rep. Nancy Pelosi 416 votes to 12. How would Mr. Chaffetz’s leadership affect the issue? It apparently wouldn’t if, as he admitted, he was completely unaware of the bill.

Congressman Cannon has a 98.7% favorable rating for voting to keep America’s military strong and national defense as a priority. Why would Utah Republicans be interested in changing course?

3. Education

Cutting past the tag lines, the only major issue repeatedly raised regarding education, that supposedly distinguishes Cannon and Chaffetz, is Mr. Cannon’s previous support of No Child Left Behind. This is ironic given that Mr. Cannon has explained his past vote, changed his position and has repeatedly been sent back to Washington by Utah voters since that vote.

I asked Mr. Cannon about this issue, the first time he appeared on FreeCapitalist radio. He spoke openly and candidly about the situation. First, he suggested he regretted the vote. Second, he suggested that the implementation of the law was what made the situation far worse than could have been predicted before hand. Finally, he offered suggestions for how to move forward with education reform and detailed his efforts since that vote several terms ago.

Mr. Cannon’s explanation was thoughtful and his willingness to speak candidly about an issue that has come to bite many Republicans over the years was refreshing. Chaffetz, however, appears stuck in the past on the issue. The Provo Daily Herald recently offered the following insightful conclusion on the situation:

“For Chaffetz to hammer Cannon for his initial support of No Child Left Behind is unfair. After all, Cannon isn’t hammering Chaffetz for campaigning for Micheal Dukakis not so many years ago.”

4. Spending

Perhaps most striking is Mr. Chaffetz criticism that fiscal discipline needs to be returned to Washington. His argument is of course true. What candidate couldn’t say this?

Strangely, Mr. Chaffetz’s ideas on the subject are revealing-in odd ways-of a deeper intention. For example, he charges that in order to change fiscal spending we’ve “got to elect different people” but he forgets that the different people argument only works if you remember that the Democrats are controlling the Congress and the way to change the discipline of the Congress is to send people from the other side. Cannon has a 92% voting record when it comes to fiscal discipline – perhaps Chaffetz is thinking he could muster 95% or even 100% but without more Republicans in D.C., exactly how does this matter?

When Mr. Chaffetz suggests that for Utahan’s to get different results in Washington we should send different people, my suggestion is that we send one fewer Representative from the Democratic side of the isle. If Mr. Chaffetz or any other future contender wants to make a stand, take on the Democrats first – or at least a left leaning Republican. By taking on Mr. Cannon, Chaffetz demonstrates its more about his political future than it is about fighting the good fight.

Finally, in the arena of finance, Chaffetz has jumped on the McCain bandwagon of demonizing “earmarks.” This is ironic given that Mr. Cannon is consistently rated as being more conservative than the left of center ratings commonly applied to Mr. McCain.

Voters would do well to remember that earmarks are an elected representative’s tool for exacting financial discipline against professional bureaucrats. Earmarks are instructions for money already authorized, not votes for increased spending. Chaffetz suggests he won’t use earmarks, which is to say, he won’t provide specific leadership or discipline over the regulators who implement the laws he would vote to pass. Interesting.

Argument #2 – There are several obvious reasons to support Representative Cannon.

First, consider his actual record. While almost any Utah Republican might find a vote or even several that he or she might disagree with Representative Cannon about, is anyone so naïve as to believe the same wouldn’t be the case with Mr. Chaffetz? Is it ever different with any elected official?

The reason we have a representative government is that American’s put their elected officials in a position to know more about the larger political interplay and the consequences of individual decisions. Congressman Cannon has one of the most conservative and consistent voting records of any elected official. When compared to his predecessors in Utah, when evaluated by bills sponsored, attendance at critical votes, and leadership in committee assignments Congressman Cannon compares favorably by almost all measures.

Second, the endorsements received by Congressman Cannon do not come easily. Not only has he been endorsed and supported by his colleagues in the Congress, and by the President of the United States, he has also been supported by pro-free enterprise organizations including those with a pro-emigration reform interest such as the world’s largest organized effort for businesses and free-enterprise in America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Should Utahan’s take no stock of these endorsements because of an emotional, and at times insatiable, desire for “change?”

Third, Congressman Cannon has a firm grasp on both the political philosophy and legislative reality of core American principles. Have Utahan’s listened to Congressman Cannon articulate his understanding of conservative principles? On FreeCapitalist Radio over the years there have been very few guests who can compare to Mr. Cannon’s level of passion and concern, informed advocacy, and mature grasp on the very real battle going on in Washington.

Mr. Chaffetz may indeed be sincere, but when I visited with him in my home after the state Republican Convention – he came off as a policy minded aspirant, more than a principle grounded advocate for freedom. I mean no insult to Mr. Chaffetz, I would prefer him representing Utah to, lets say, your average Democrat. But, he did not strike me as a man who had a grasp on the intellectual foundations of freedom.

Like I say on the radio, being right is only half the battle. Being right for the right reason – now that is a more powerful formula. In all seriousness, do Utah Republicans really want to send Chris Cannon packing when Mr. Chaffetz has not yet read, let alone grappled with, Bastiat’s “The Law” or von Mises’ “Human Action?”

Argument #3 – Electing Mr. Chaffetz will only weaken the Republican cause.

The biggest reason Republicans have failed strategically, and why Conservatives have failed to ever control a majority in the US Congress is because Republican voters have too often been apt to change course-without regard to a more mature understanding of the battle we are facing in America. First and foremost what Republican’s should be concerned about in 2008 is increasing their numbers in Washington. Mr. Chaffetz chose to campaign against Congressman Cannon rather than Democrat Matheson because, by his own admission, he didn’t think he could beat Matheson. I would argue this is part of the problem.

Let me explain in more detail. Shortly after the FreeCapitalists helped ward off his near upset of Mr. Cannon at the state Republican Convention I invited Mr. Chaffetz to my home. I wanted to visit with him about his agenda, his motivations and to discuss the mission of the FreeCapitalist Project and our interest in freedom, prosperity and peace.

We spent several hours visiting about all sorts of issues. I found Mr. Chaffetz to be intelligent, sincere, and authentic. I like Jason. But, a few things stick out in my mind from that meeting.

First, I asked Mr. Chaffetz what he would do if he should lose this election. His response was that he anticipated he would return to the private sector. I asked about other political possibilities to which he responded, “this is kind of a one-hit wonder” situation for me. He referenced that in his mind efforts like those of former candidate John Swallow demonstrated that it was a one shot opportunity for him to “make his mark.” I probed him and asked him, if he was so serious about fighting for freedom why he would give up after only one shot. He did not provide a substantive answer. I choose note to support a candidate whose commitment to freedom is limited to serving in elected office.

Second, after letting Mr. Chaffetz know that while I was the founder and President of the FreeCapitalist Project (we have approximately 12,000 FreeCapitalist minded constituents in Utah) all of our members were free to make up their own minds about how to vote, I invited him to visit our online community. I suggested that he could post his position statements there, engage in discussion on our forums, etc. To my knowledge he did not take advantage of that opportunity. I thought that was rather odd given that FreeCapitalists fielded over 10% of the delegates to the state Republican convention and that we represent a particularly active political segment of the population. I think his behavior is reflective of the tribalistic mentality that suggests its important to be the head of the tribe, but at the same time shows little interest in leading in other arenas. This problem has plagued Conservatives for generations.

Congressman Cannon has a business, legal, and public service background before and during his time in office that demonstrates his commitment to the principles of prosperity. Mr. Chaffetz is handicap here because of his lack of political experience, his lack of civic service in the interests of freedom outside of politics, and a lack of any endorsement from his previous boss, Utah Governor Huntsman. I asked him about this, and about his commitment to the cause of freedom, despite holding elective office, his answer was still that it was this election or nothing. I find that answer troubling.

Finally, I tried to ask Mr. Chaffetz about his own agenda. I asked him about his political philosophy, who he enjoyed reading, and about some of his key influences. I was surprised that he could be so policy sharp and yet have so little philosophical depth.

Quite frankly, it worried me. I was sitting there thinking to myself that he might indeed come to represent Utah in the US Congress, and here again would be another Republican who did not understand the intellectual history and the consequences of the monumental, ideological, war being waged across the world for the last eighty years.

I was even more surprised that in over two hours visiting one-on-one Mr. Chaffetz did not try even one time to learn anything about me or the FreeCapitalist organization. I don’t remember him asking me one question. Nor has he followed up since then. I don’t have any personal feelings that are negative, but it seemed to demonstrate to me that he was more interested in winning my support than he was in earning the respect of my associates. This again seemed to me to be a collectivist mentality that suggests that voters might be persuaded to make a good decision during an election year (through pull, strategy, marketing, and cleverness) but once the election is over-the consequence of this kind of thinking tends to bring about a more tyrannical government-not a more free one.

I think Mr. Chaffetz has demonstrated extraordinary ability during this campaign. But, he is far less qualified to Represent Utah today than is Mr. Cannon. His experience and political convictions have amounted, so far, to nothing more than opportunism.

I sincerely think Jason wants to win-but I’m not convinced of his commitment. Depending on the future course he pursues, I consider it a very real possibility that, I could consider him an ally and even be a supporter. But, not today.

Today Jason Chaffetz would not be a good choice for Utah, and certainly not when compared to Congressman Chris Cannon.

Congressman Cannon is a man – like all of us – with faults. However, in his capacity as an elected Representative, he stands head and shoulders above his challenger. This is why even a number of his former opponents have regularly endorsed him.

The reader may be interested to note-it was Congressman Cannon who initially sought out the FreeCapitalist Project. We had been publishing a free, monthly newsletter called the “FreeCapitalist” and he walked into our offices and asked who was responsible for publishing such information. On our first meeting he expressed sincere interest in helping support the message of prosperity and freedom. He demonstrated a great interested in our cause. He maintained the endorsement of some of our other supporters such as the late Dr. W. Cleon Skousen and the late H. Les McGuire.

From that first day in our office, Congressman Cannon has maintained an open channel of communication to FreeCapitalists and other freedom minded individuals. He has repeatedly been our guest on the radio and open for discussion with almost no difficulty whatsoever. In my own experience, I have personally watched him go the extra mile to reach out to those who have at one time or another disagreed with him.

Congressman Cannon understands the principles of freedom and prosperity. He has represented Utah. While I sympathize with several of those who are frustrated with government, and even with Mr. Cannon-I suggest he is a great asset for the state of Utah and we should count ourselves fortunate that he is willing to endure the heavy price of being our Representative.

If Mr. Chaffetz is the victor tomorrow, it will send yet another message to America that Utah cannot yet discern her place as a leader in the movement for liberty and prosperity. All will not be lost, but the first thing I’ll do is send Mr. Chaffetz another copy of our Primer along with Bastiat’s The Law.

Congressman Cannon, if he is the victor, won’t need either, being thoroughly familiar with each. I recommend to all FreeCapitalists, to all of our associates, and to all Utah Republicans voting in the 3rd Congressional district – vote for Chris Cannon.

Let’s hope that tomorrow the voters show up, awake and with their brains-on. Congressman Cannon has much work to do, and much left to accomplish in Washington as we carry forward in the cause of freedom, prosperity and peace.

The United States Flag: Symbol of Freedom!

 HIGHLAND, UT | 14 June 2008 | Many years ago, I stood in a crowd of fellow students singing the national anthem before the kick off of a high school football game. My heart began to swell as I pondered over the words of that song and over those who had gone before me to represent my country in various forms, fathers and forefathers who battled for freedom from the Continental Army in 1776 to the modern day volunteer army of the Cold War; and civilians who served in many other capacities. The year was 1984. Los Angeles had just hosted the world in the Olympic Games. I had dreams and aspirations to stand on the highest podium with a gold medal around my neck as I listened to that stirring music honoring my country in a future gathering. Today marks an obscure day in history, one that few people seem to recognize or know anything about. One that gets comparatively little recognition. But one, nonetheless that deserves the attention of those who love this great nation.

June 14, 1777! The newly independent country was embroiled in war against its mother country. The Founders were looking for symbols to create a distinction for this land. The Second Continental Congress published the following resolution.

Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation

Throughout history the American flag has taken on various appearances, with the stars assuming many different shapes as sizes.  Designers have even toyed with 51- and 52-star flags in recent years as Puerto Rico and the Philippines have toyed with entering the Union.

Ever since the Revolutionary War, the American Flag has symbolized freedom. It is no wonder then that Francis Scott Key, while aboard HMS Tonnant negotiating the release of a prisoner friend, kept an eye on the flag over the battlements of Fort McHenry. As long as the then 15 star, 15 striped Star Spangled Banner flew atop the flag post, he knew freedom still reigned in that Maryland night. Our national anthem memorializes that experience that shows Key’s exultation of seeing that flag wave over the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Today, the flag still stands for freedom wherever it flies and its perseverent nature tends to tug at the heartstrings of even the most hardened American, such as viewing the sight of the flag found at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. But take away two keystone documents and the symbolism of the American flag begins to ring empty.

Our Founders, driven by newfound glimpses of freedom based upon ancient principles, declared their break from England in 1776. The Declaration of Indepedence explains that when a “government becomes destructive of [those ancient principles] it is the right of the people … to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…” Eleven years later they completed that process by creating the Constitution. Thus, the Declaration of Indepence enumerates ancient principles that declare man free, and the Constitution makes the rules under which the government will keep man free. Without these two documents, the freedom and power of the American flag is nothing more than a piece of cloth flapping in the wind.

Today we pledge allegiance to that flag. We declare our love for this country. But if we allow the strength of these two documents to sink into oblivion ignorance and entitlement behavior, how long will that land be free and the people be brave over which Old Glory flies?  

Resources

Declaration of Independence

The History of Flag Day USFlag.org

A Brief Outline of the Flag of the United States, God-bless-America.org

Flag Acts (United States), Wikipedia.org

A History of Our Flag, by Rose Marie Heck, republished on Hasbrouck Heights, NJ website

Friends of the American Revolution

The Stars and Stripes: An Official History of the American Flag, New York Times, May 29, 1892. This is a fascinating read in the original printing of the newspaper. You get the history of the flag plus the visual history of how the paper was printed back in 1892.

29 Little-Known, Fascinating Flag Facts from the Book; Flag: An American Biography.

What Do the Colors of the Flag Mean? USFlag.org

Francis Scott Key, wikipedia.org

Representative of the People?

HIGHLAND, UT | 7 June 2008 | Hillary Clinton at least bought a house in New York and pretended to set up residency so she could legally and legitimately represent that state in the Senate. The face of Utah politics in 2008 has a man running for Congress in one district and living in another. He can’t even vote for himself, yet he plans to somehow represent a constituency remote from himself?

I had an email conversation with a friend today in which I challenged this friend’s premise that Chaffetz is the best candidate for that seat. The premise was:

Chaffetz is worthy to win based strictly on his merits—not his money, his name or his political connections.

This caused me to reflect for a moment on what that actually means.

What is in a name?A name, in this context, is a reputation. A name becomes either good or bad based upon the character of the person carrying that name. In a word, a name is a merit. The Cannon family has spent generations building up a good name, most of it based upon the merits of good people and wise people, the very type of person we claim to be looking for. Chaffetz? What is in his name? He is a veritable nobody. No one of significance can look at his name and say, “Yes, now there’s a man of wisdom and goodness.”

Money—what is the responsibility of Congress? First is the power of the purse. Constitutionally, all monetary bills start in the House of Representatives. Who better to have in Congress than someone who indicates with his own life that he understands the proper management of money? I don’t understand why we would want to elect someone to this office whose life is an indication that they do not understand money.

Now, that being said, what of Jason Chaffetz’ money? He lives in Alpine (NOT in District 3, by the way) and if the house on the video is his house, which I have no reason to believe otherwise, there is a pretty good indication that he has money. In remaining true to my statement above, this is a plus to Chaffetz. However, if he is running a campaign on the premise that he is pretending not to be a person of means, then this video has revealed him to be a hypocrite in this matter. I don’t know if this is one of his premises or if it was simply one of the premises you choose in determining a suitable candidate, so please help me understand that.

Political Connections—what do you know about either candidates’ political connections? Here is what I know. Cannon has been active in politics for many years. He comes from a family who cares deeply about the political situation in the state and the nation, probably also on the more important local levels as well. Because of his many years of activity and experience, I am sure he has developed camaraderie with other politically active people both in and out of the party, as well as in Utah and in Washington. He is a leader in Congress as well as a leader in state politics. His political connections should be applauded rather than denigrated.

If, however, you believe a person should not have political connections in order to serve in this position, let’s evaluate Chaffetz’ possible political connections. He served as Governor Huntsman’s chief of staff for a period of time. This is not a position a person gets appointed to without connections. The fact that he served in this position is indication that he has some really good connections. So, if you are looking for someone who has no connections then Chaffetz is not your man. You were better to have picked one of the lesser known candidates who were able only to generate a dozen votes at convention and can’t figure out why they don’t get elected. It is because they have absolutely no political connection. I just don’t think it is warrant-able to use connectivity or non-connectivity alone as a premise for getting someone elected. Moreover, again, a person’s political connections is good indication of his/her merits.

Merits—What are merits if they are not somehow grounded in a person’s ability to create and maintain a good name, perform business in such a way as to successfully obtain money and to manage it effectively to keep it for a good amount of time, and the ability to work well with other people in a way that he can create political connections? These are all manifestations of a person’s merits. But there is one more, the merit I believe you are wanting to base electability on, and that is the person’s track record. Chris Cannon has an amazing track record in the House of Representatives. He has 100% voting record. He is not back there screwing around on the tax payer’s dime. He has a 96% approval record on the emigration question. You will not find a greater advocate for the cause of freedom and the protection of the constitution. He has nearly no earmarks or pork. On the websites I know of that report such things, he has $0 earmarked. Those merits sound pretty good.

What exactly are Jason Chaffetz’ merits? Here is all I know. He was a leader of the campus Democrats while attending BYU. (Don’t know what merit that is either way since most college students are ignorantly liberal, knowing very little about the world.) He served briefly as Gov. Huntsman’s chief of staff, a bureaucratic position rather than an elected one. I don’t know what other political activities he has ever participated in. His campaign website says nothing of his experience, which leads me to believe he has none. To say nothing of his desires to truly serve his fellow citizens whether he is elected or not. He speaks very well and has memorized all the slick talking points quite nicely, which to me is a sign to be cautious of his real intent, many very dangerous people in history have possessed the slick ability to speak eloquently—smooth as oil as one prominent 19th century figure put it.

Conclusion

The wisdom of our Founders created a brand new style of government, one that took on the strengths of many different types throughout the ages. One of the greatest strengths was the separation of powers between the states and the people. Congress uniquely represented both, originally. The Senate, chosen by each state’s legislatures was to represent the states, not the people. The Seventeenth Amendment turned the Senate into a House of Representatives at large. The House of Representatives has always been the people’s chamber. The Constitution directs that Reps are elected ‘by the people of the several states.’ In 1842, Congress stipulated that members should represent certain districts of their given states rather than be at large representatives. This was a wise move, as the at-large system was becoming chaotic and confusing. Even the Founders expressed their wisdom on this matter. George Mason:

The requisites in actual representation are that the representatives should sympathize with their constituents; should think as they think, and feel as they feel; and that for these purposes should even be residents among them.

In this day when we complain long and loud that politicians are out of touch with their constituents, don’t you think it most prudent to give those constituents at least a fighting chance at the onset by electing the candidate who lives among them? Even Hillary saw the prudence in that!

Next Page »