Re-Launching Free Capitalist Radio

Re-Launching Free Capitalist Radio. Episode Theme : The Project, Basic Principles of Capitalism, and a Tribute to Dr. W. Cleon Skousen.

The episode focuses heavily on the basic principles of capitalism. Comments about President Obama’s recent remarks about “losing touch with Americans” and a syllogism of Ayn Rand related to Individual Rights, Property Rights, and Liberty.

Spreading the Wealth Around

By J. Kenneth Blackwell – New York Post | THANKS to Joe the Plumber, we now know for sure that Barack Obama wants to “spread the wealth around.” But the Democratic candidate still hasn’t come clean on just how much of a European-style socialist he is.

Look at the “tax cut” he says he’ll give to 95 percent of Americans. In fact, this is simply a government check he’d hand out – including to millions who don’t pay income taxes, since each year 38 percent of Americans already get a full refund.

In other words, his “rebate” is a welfare plan, plain and simple.

When called on this, Obama’s answer is that those 38 percent still pay payroll taxes, so he’s rebating part of those payments. But that actually puts him deeper into the socialist hole. Here’s why.

Payroll taxes go to fund Social Security and Medicare – the main US social-insurance programs. The taxes are dedicated because these are insurance programs – you’re paying so that you’ll be covered when you hit retirement age.

But, down the line, these programs face a financial crisis even worse than>>>>Read the Full Article

The Consequence of a Liberal Supermajority

The Wall Street Journal | If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind>>>>Read the Full Article

President Obama! Now What?

By Fouad Ajami (Wall Street Journal-Opinion Page)

The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat — by now unthinkable to the devotees — will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won’t be solved by a leader’s magic.

There is something odd — and dare I say novel — in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right.

Martin Kozlowski

As the late Nobel laureate Elias Canetti observes in his great book, “Crowds and Power” (first published in 1960), the crowd is based on an illusion of equality: Its quest is for that moment when “distinctions are thrown off and all become equal. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd.” These crowds, in the tens of thousands, who have been turning out for the Democratic standard-bearer in St. Louis and Denver and Portland, are a measure of American distress.

On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen. Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish. The coalition that has propelled his quest — African-Americans and affluent white liberals — has no economic coherence. But for the moment, there is the illusion of a common undertaking — Canetti’s feeling of equality within the crowd. The day after, the crowd will of course discover its own fissures. The affluent will have to pay for the programs promised the poor. The redistribution agenda that runs through Mr. Obama’s vision is anathema to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and the hedge-fund managers now smitten with him. Their ethos is one of competition and the justice of the rewards that come with risk and effort. All this is shelved, as the devotees sustain the candidacy of a man whose public career has been a steady advocacy of reining in the market and organizing those who believe in entitlement and redistribution.

A creature of universities and churches and nonprofit institutions, the Illinois senator, with the blessing and acquiescence of his upscale supporters, has glided past these hard distinctions. On the face of it, it must be surmised that his affluent devotees are ready to foot the bill for the new order, or are convinced that after victory the old ways will endure, and that Mr. Obama will govern from the center. Ambiguity has been a powerful weapon of this gifted candidate: He has been different things to different people, and he was under no obligation to tell this coalition of a thousand discontents, and a thousand visions, the details of his political programs: redistribution for the poor, post racial absolution and “modernity” for the upper end of the scale.

It was no accident that the white working class was >>>> Read the Full Article

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

Whose Time Is It, Anyway?

HIGHLAND, UT | 6 August 2008 | One hundred-fifty years ago, nearly everyone worked from home. Not much of a surprise; it was an agrarian society. People worked in their own fields or they had shops (such as a blacksmith or mercantiler) attached to their homes. Following decades found more people move their workplaces into town as the industrial revolution took hold. Over the past fifty to eighty years hardly anyone has worked at home, preferring to take a job rather than be self-employed at a home-based operation. But today with the high cost of fuel and other influences, more and more people are opting to work at home.

Today’s work-at-home environment poses new challenges that yesteryear’s work-at-homers perhaps didn’t have to deal with. Sue Shellenbarger, of the Wall Street Journal, reports that employers fear workers will take advantage of the lack of personal supervision and squander valuable time. The solution? Employing monitoring devices in employees’ computers to “look over their shoulders.” Naturally, questions of “Big Brother” arise both from employees and from critics of the process. So, is an employer justified in placing such monitoring devices? Or should the work-at-home employee have the right to work as he sees fit without the close electronic supervision? Several principles are at play in this this interaction.

Most recognize almost immediately in this story that force destroys freedom and that perhaps by using the monitoring devices employers are using force over their employees and therefore destroying their freedom. But other principles come into play that reveal a much deeper issue involved in the interaction between employer and employee: Productivity is the standard, and agency implies stewardship.

Key Points

• Employers own the businesses people work in.
• They own the equipment, the buildings, the hardware and the software associated with the business.
• They own the projects pertaining to the profitability of the business.
• They own the labor their employees have agreed to sell them.
• Owners recognize that labor rightly ordered (or as Napoleon Hill puts it, organized effort) is required to be profitable.
• Therefore, they have the right to monitor the productivity and effectiveness of the labor they have purchased from employees.
• To be honest, employees should be the most productive they can be during the times they sold their labor to employers.
• Employees often squawk about the monitoring of labor from their employers. They claim the employers take away their agency in this process.
• The best way to recognize where agency rightly exists is to answer the question: Who has stewardship in the matter? Regarding Employer/Employee exchanges agency and stewardship changes hands at different times.
  • Prior to the agreement, both parties have stewardship over their own self-interest—their personal and family welfare, business concerns, etc.
  • In the process of coming to an agreement both parties essentially say, “I see what you are wanting to do. My self-interest aligns with yours in ____ area, and I want to create value for you by ____.” The employee agrees to sell a portion of his life (time and labor) to the employer in order to accomplish both sets of self-interests. Or in other words, the employee sells a portion of his agency to the employer.
  • After the contract has been signed, the employee no longer has stewardship or agency over that portion of his life (time and labor). He must therefore fulfill his obligations in the contract by laboring in the manner and at the time his employer and he agreed upon.
  • The employer still carries the ultimate stewardship of the business, and has the right to monitor the employee’s productivity while on the job.
• Often employers like to share the responsibility of stewardship with their employees. Along with that responsibility, when properly executed by the boss, comes added agency for the employee. The employee then is able to make a few decisions regarding his time and labor.

Conclusion

Ms. Shellenbarger’s story dealt mostly with employers monitoring employees. Based upon the items listed above, this process appears perfectly right. However, often the comment was made that employers wish to monitor free-lance and contract workers at home as well. These types of individuals clearly fit into a more free category. While they have sold their time and labor to others, they generally do not sell those items in the same way an employee does. They have usually preserved for themselves a little of the agency and stewardship that the employee gives up. It would therefore be against principle for the employer to monitor the productivity of these people.  

The challenges between employer and employee have been around for generations. The boss wants the utmost productivity from his workers. The worker wants mostly to be left alone while working and to have the freedom to work as, how and when he chooses. A FreeCapitalist society—one in which both employer and employee choose voluntarily to live according to ancient principles of prosperity—can peacefully and easily solve these challenges by exploring the myriad solutions available to those whose brains are awake and switched to on.

Action Items

1. Review your own situation for creating value in the world, whether it be business owner, self-employed, freelance, contract worker, or employee.
2. Study out the level of agency and stewardship you possess by reviewing the agreements you have made for the exchange.
3. Resolve to stick to those agreements. If you do not like your agreement, stick with it until the opportunity presents itself to alter or abolish that agreement in advantage of a new one.
4. If you are the boss of work-at-home employees and you suspect that you are not receiving the level of productivity you desire or think is reasonable, discuss alternatives with your employees. Perhaps some of the following questions could be of help.
   1. What is the nature of the agreement you have with your employee?
   2. How much agency and stewardship have you afforded to your employee?
   3. Have you allowed the amount of agency and stewardship you intended?
   4. Is the amount of agency and stewardship facilitating or restricting the amount of productivity you desire?
   5. If no on #4, how can you make arrangements—including monitoring, or changing the employment status to freelancers or contract workers, etc.—with your employee to incite higher productivity?
5. If you are the employee in a similar situation, and you are dissatisfied with the current arrangements, it is also healthy for you to explore the answers to the above questions. If they are not to your liking, consider some of the following.
   1. Go into business for yourself.
   2. Seek to become a freelancer where you have control over your time and labor and whom you sell them to. Perhaps selling time and labor to several employers on a piece-rate method would be better than selling your productive time to just one employer.
   3. Become a contract worker, which carries a little more agency than an employee but not as much as a freelancer or a self-employed individual.

MRFC Principles:  (3, 7, 9, 10, 13) 

Sources

Sue Shellenbarger, Work at Home? Your Employer May Be Watching, Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2008.

Why the Pickens Plan Won’t Work

HIGHLAND, UT | 23 July 2008| One of the hottest topics in the marketplace of ideas is America’s growing concern with energy. Many say that oil production peaked in 2005 and will soon dry up. Others say that petroleum based internal combustion engines, though not very efficient, are here to stay. Many are looking for alternative sources of oil, such as shale or from algae while others argue that these sources are not feasible for the country’s needs. And there is the ubiquitous clamoring that our current “dependence” upon foreign oil is draining our coffers dry. One of the latest to come on the scene for the current crisis of alternative solutions, is a man named T. Boone Pickens.

With a name like T. Boone Pickens: if you picture a Texas oil tycoon millionaire philanthropist, you would be correct. Though his plan is new, Pickens is not new to the energy industry. The son of an oil producer and a degree in geology, no doubt to aid him in understanding where oil, natural gas and other energy sources may be found in the earth, Pickens was the founder of Mesa Petroleum, which grew to become “one of the largest and most well known independent exploration and production companies in the United States” under his stewardship. Simply put, Pickens’ background and experience definitely qualifies him to be listened to regarding an alternative plan.

His plan is to use one of the world’s greatest wind resources to generate enough electricity to power other energy plants and to provide a portion of America’s electricity needs, thus relieving the need to operate these plants with oil, so the oil demand in the country would drop and more oil could also be used to produce fuel for our vehicles. The Plan also provides for alternative sources of automobile fuel, such as natural gas and ultimately electricity. The plan appears quite legitimate, in and of itself. But it contains a serious flaw that will prove it ultimate failure, and perhaps the failure of our great nation.

Principles govern in the affairs of man. A plan that violates those principles may prove quite successful in the short-term, but will ultimately spell the doom of all those involved. In this regard, Pickens doesn’t really appear to violate principle in the plan itself: wind, natural gas, and other sources of energy are as viable as any other on earth. And left up to a good capitalist, say, another Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, these alternatives could definitely become the next hysteria in transportation. The major flaws of the Pickens Plan is the implementation.

Pickens has been in Washington D.C.all this week, lobbying elected officials and testifying before committees, looking for “permission” to carry forth his plan. This corporatist approach to solving this nation’s challenges violates the Principles of Prosperity and will ultimately end in ruins.

Key Points

• Those who seek the protection of government believe government provides prosperity. Those who understand where true prosperity comes from will then gain the faith necessary to act appropriately. Pickens reveals his faith in government rather than God:

It can all be accomplished with private investment but needs government support by clearing the way for action, which means help on providing the transmission right of way, the appropriate renewals of the renewable energy tax credits, among other things.

• In reality, the plan, any plan, only needs one thing from government: to get itself out of the way and allow informed citizens to voluntarily create the solutions the country seeks.
• Faith is the opposite of fear. again, a thorough understanding of God as the true source of prosperity puts the course in perspective and creates a level of certainty. This builds faith which aids an individual to action. Pickens wants to have the government force its citizens to follow his plan. He lacks the faith that people will see this for themselves. If an intended market does not recognize its self-interest in a given market item, the only way to get that intended market to buy into it is by force. The better solution for Pickens would be to create the project more locally and have it prove its legitimacy and allow it to catch on in the rest of the country. To his credit, he is currently building the largest wind farm in the world which will have the productive capability of four coal-fire plants. Perhaps, however, he feels this is too slow.
• By attaching stewardship (the responsibility of failure) to the collective body, the Pickens Plan creates a fissure in agency. No one will act responsibly enough to ensure success. This allows an escape hatch to exist in case of failure. And when it crashes, too many otherwise responsible parties will echo Atlas Shrugs’, “It’s not my fault.” This gets people off the hook but it does not create a formula for success.

Conclusion

The intended implementation process of the Pickens Plan is the product of a collective attitude within the American society that says business success can only happen with government’s blessing. This is the result of decades of fascist and other socialist influence over not just government’s psyche, but that of the general population as well. Thus, the truth of the FreeCapitalist statement: Everyone is trained, taught, and educated in the scarcity paradigm. That psyche is the flame that has fueled our society from the Great Depression right down to the next big bail out and the next government-enforced great idea. On paper, the Pickens Plan looks really good, but these violations of principle will spell the ultimate doom. The Founders created a country in which rugged individualism and social strength, based upon the universal principles of prosperity, would move this country forward in success. Anything short of that, anything that replaces faith with fear, is at best a counterfeit and will not work.

Action Items

1. Review the Pickens Plan for yourself and decide whether the energy portion of the plan is something you could support.
2. Communicate with your Congressman your position regarding any government involvement in this Plan.
3. If you have an idea you’ve contemplated bringing to market, study Principle 1 (God is the author of prosperity) and Principle 2 (Faith begins with self-interest) until you have built enough faith in yourself and in others to bring your idea to market according to principle.

MRFC Principles:  1  (1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13)

Sources

The Man with the Plan,PickensPlan.com.

The Plan,PickensPlan.com.

T. Boone Pickens’ energy plan gets play in Washington, Dallas Business Journal, July 23, 2008.

C. Rick Koerber, A Call for Revolution,The FreeCapitalist Project Primer, p. 19.

A River Runs through It

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 23 JULY 2008 | Since 1982, Utah streams have been open to public passage and recreation, even when those streams passed through private land. But, eight years ago, an angler was cited for trespassing on private land when he left his raft to wander the river bed. On Friday, because of a court case stemming from that incident, the Utah Supreme Court ruled to allow the public to “walk on the beds of all streams and rivers, no matter who owns the land beneath them.”While the ruling shows extreme disregard for basic property ownership rights, the reaction to the ruling by the general public shows even greater lack of concern for principles. Ed Kent, chair of the Utah Anglers Coalition said, “This is going to open corridors of extremely productive waters to anglers that have only been accessible to individuals who gained permission from friends to fish private land.” Upon hearing the ruling, the plaintiff in the case, Kevin Conatser, was ecstatic. “Right on! Sweet! How great! Fishermen are going to love me!”

Somehow, a general lack of understanding of principles has led both the government and the people to the mistaken belief that the public can have ownership in a nation that embraces freedom. The court should know and act better. But, until the people become intimately familiar with and committed to basic, foundational principles, what the court says or does is irrelevant.

Key Points

• Anytime the government steps in to own anything in the name of the public, freedom is inherently lost.
• Private groups may own land and set specific rules for its use, but that is a voluntary act of the individuals involved in the group.
• When government tries to do the same, they are stepping beyond their bounds.
• Government control of private property is at the very heart of all socialist agendas.
• Ezra Taft Benson said conversations on “these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they, themselves, wish to be popular.”
• It could be added that seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they perceive a personal benefit in the program. That mentality never considers the potential infringement on others’ benefits or rights.
• Lack of understanding has also led the government and the people to believe that rights (and principles) are created by man, rather than God. “Rights” become an offshoot of personal desires and opinions. Without universal guiding standards, anything can become a “right” if enough people stand behind it. And, as man creates his own rights, there are bound to be conflicts of interest and unintended consequences.
• This case pits one man’s perceived right (use of ‘public’ resources) against another man’s God-given right (pursuit of happiness through property ownership). And, while the government is supposedly founded for the protection of our God-given rights, the public is willing to wield government force for any cause that affects them personally. How would this fisherman feel if people wanted to use his land without his permission?
• Conatser says “Now we can float down that river without being worried about getting shot by that farmer.” Those who believe that government force can or will stifle personal agency are mistaken. The law, in and of itself, has no power to control or engineer individual actions. It can reactively punish actions, but it will never prevent any action, unless it is coupled with extreme use of unwarranted force. Hiding behind the new law seems to make Conatser more cavalier and may likely be what does get him shot.

Conclusion

This is just wrong. This opens up privately owned lands to abuse and damage. Defense attorney in this case, Ronald Russell says, “Even streams as small as a trickle will be fair game for people who want to fish or wade…[they can] walk up and down it as long as (they) like…If I had a stream in my backyard, I’d be concerned.”

Of greater concern than the wrongness of the decision, this story shows how disconnected people are from principles. People are overly anxious to use the power of the government to push their personal agendas. This opens up the foundation of freedom to abuse and damage. In a giddy frenzy, anglers are planning trips to other people’s land, less because of good fishing, and more because of a desire to “stick it” to the landowners that have stood in their way in the past. (See the comments posted in response to the article in the Salt Lake Tribune—link below.)

So, if you happen to own land where there is good fishing, a nice watering hole, or any other feature of interest connected to a river or stream, you might consider opening up a lemonade stand to invite your new visitors and guests. Just be sure to get the proper permits for it before you do.

Action Items

1. Have a frank discussion with someone whose land will be affected by this or a similar ruling. Discuss with them what could be done to limit the effects of this law or to overturn it.
2. Consider what your own thoughts and feelings would be if your private property was forcefully opened up to public use.
3. Do you support laws based on how they will benefit you, rather than basing your decision on principle?
4. Each of us has stewardships where we can force other’s actions or guide them to make the right choices. Consider whether you tend to use force or persuasion (example—When your children argue over a toy, do you force them to share, or do you help them work something out that they can both agree to?)
5. Read or re-read Benson’s “Proper Role of Government” (link below)

MRFC Principles: 13 (3, 11, 12)

Sources

Stephen Hunt and Brett Prettyman, “Utah Supreme Court: Use of public waterways includes streambeds – even on private land,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, 2008.

Ezra Taft Benson, “Proper Role of Government,” 1968

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.

Next Page »