The text of the Constitution does not define citizenship for us, so how do we define citizenship in the United States?  It is actually in the US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401, where we read:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
a)    a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

… and then there are more specific definitions of other ways one becomes a citizen at birth.  I suggest that everyone have a look at Title 8, and specifically Chapter 12 of the US Code.  It was both a confusing and enlightening experience for me, and I am left with a question in my mind.

Why is birth, when it happens under the jurisdiction of the United States a qualification for citizenship by itself?  Is all it takes to be “worthy” of having someone else risk their life and property to defend my freedoms, for me to be born to the right people in the right place and the right time?  It seems to me that this is just a derivative of the divine right of kings.  If you happen to be lucky enough to be born under the right circumstances to the right people, you are inherently more worthy of citizenship than someone who was not so fortunate.  Anyone else must study for years, establish residency and take an oath of allegiance.  Why am I, being a natural born citizen of the United States, not required to take an oath of allegiance in order to benefit from that agreement?  Of course those, like children and the mentally handicap, who are not able to make such an oath for themselves, fall under the stewardship of their guardians, and are thus protected by the commitment of their guardian.

A satirical article in the Deseret News addressed the issue of citizenship and the US Constitution.  It reads:

It is a generally accepted fact that the Constitution of the United States of America is obsolete and no longer applicable to our times. By “generally accepted,” I mean by me.
In this age of iPods, iPhones and iRaq, it is clear that the current generation is not interested in the tenets of a document written more than 200 years ago. We forget the text messages we received less than 200 seconds ago. No, as important as the Constitution was to our forebears — who spoke of each amendment with solemnity while working actively to undermine them — the digital age requires a digital solution, a solution that captures the nobility of that sacred parchment, a solution that can be easily achieved with a mouse click.

There is only one realistic possibility: The Constitution must be replaced be an End-User License Agreement.

The Constitution, by not requiring any such action, is far too lenient. Any bum, lowlife, scoundrel or complete moron can be born in this country and be declared president by the Supreme Court. Any inept buffoon has the right to free speech and the ability to turn that into a radio contract with Fox News. Any self-serving and morally bankrupt individual is granted the freedom to bear arms and use that freedom to shoot an attorney while on a hunting expedition. No citizen of the United States has to do a darn thing to enjoy the Constitution’s protections!

Key Points

• Agency implies stewardship – the agency gained through citizenship has an accompanying stewardship.  Anyone who does not accept that stewardship, should also lose their citizenship.
• The government is not an organization, government does not exist as such.  “The Government” is an agreement using our right to govern our own lives.
• The US Constitution is not out of date, or archaic.  It is much more than a mere document with sentimental and significant historical context.  It is a very real agreement between the citizens of the United States and those they elect to take on the stewardship of part of their self-government.

Conclusion

The Constitution IS an end-user license agreement (EULA), or at least it should be.  The Preamble states, “We the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.”  It is an agreement for the end user – us.  Citizenship is something that must be earned.  It is not an entitlement because of our parentage.

Action Items

1. Study Title 8, Chapter 12 of the US Code and find out what it takes to become a citizen of the United States.  Think about why some people do so much to obtain that privilege and seek to meet those requirements yourself whether you are applying for citizenship or not.
2. Write an essay on what citizenship in the United States means to you.  If you are a citizen of another country, write about what citizenship in your country means to you and how you can best help promote the cause of freedom in your own community and nation.
3. Make a personal pledge to be worthy of citizenship in a country that values and protects freedom and liberty above comfort and security.

MRFC Principles:

Sources

Jeffrey R. Wilbur Let’s replace Constitution with user agreement, Deseret News, August 31, 2008.

Cornell University Law School Website

Ammon Nelson was born the second of ten children. Raised in West Valley City, he graduated from Granger High School in 1992 and served an LDS mission to the Northeast region of Brazil. He graduated from Salt Lake Community College in 2000 and from the University of Idaho, in Moscow, ID, in 2003. He enjoys discussing philosophy, performing and learning music, and spending time with his family. He currently lives in West Valley City with his wife, the former Heather Mann, and their six children. He works for the Nucor Building Systems of Brigham City, Utah, and has been a part of the FreeCapitalist Project since September 2006.

Key Points

• Rand teaches, “Any material element or resource which…requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” In other words, the person who put forth this Human Life Value should be the rightful owner of his efforts.
• The Internet exists in name only, for it is merely a system of wires, hardware, and software, no matter how high tech; all assembled by individuals and therefore individually owned, operated and maintained. The government neither owns nor controls these devices collectively.
• There are many levels of ownership involved with the Internet. For example, those who own the servers, routers, cables, etc; and those who own the intellectual property stored and transmitted on these devices.
• An individual user owns the data he created, an email for example. He is simply renting the rest. He therefore has no more right to those devices than a driver on the road has a right to owning the guardrail or the lines painted on the street.
• Though acting more like a pipeline than hauling buckets, the transmission of data through this web of communication is only facilitated by the work of human hands.
• Ayn Rand explained, “It is the proper task of the government to protect individual rights and, as part of it, to formulate the laws by which these rights are to be implemented and adjudicated. It is the government’s responsibility to define the application of individual rights to a given sphere of activity—to define (i.e., identify), not to create, invent, donate, or expropriate.” In other words, if the dispute over ISPs discriminating between pieces of data does come to government’s doors, government should ask one question: “Whose property is this?” When the owner is sufficiently found, government should then say, “Great. All the rest of you, do what the owner says.”
• However, there is a great sickness in our land. It is the sickness of collectivism. Too many people believe in the mantra what’s yours is mine. Dunbar reported beautifully on this when he quoted Justine Bateman, the TV actress, “The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your amterial or allow quick access is appalling.” A closer look at this statement reveals an entitlement attitude regarding activity on the Internet, and a lack of understanding of how the web works.
• A great way to sort this out is to return to the first statement: “Any material element or resource which…requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” With this it becomes understandable that individuals own the Internet and it is their agency and stewardship to manage data traffic the way they see best. If customers are dissatisfied, they have the right to seek out a more satisfying Provider and become their customer. If data traffic is handled inefficiently, the market will decide who stays in business, and who finds a different line of work. This is as it should be.

Conclusion

Just as radio revolutionized the way we communicate, the Internet has revolutionized that revolution, making the availability of information almost instantaneous around the world. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, how we do business, how we store information, how we pass time. Properly understanding the hard lines of property ownership will aid each one of us in acting appropriately in this matter. The government’s role is not to demand fairness, as seen in the eyes of those who would rob others of their hard work, but rather to insure that the lines defining ownership are clearly drawn and that those who would cross those lines are duly dealt with. Anything else is an abuse of power.

Action Items

1. Review Ayn Rand’s “The Property Status of Airwaves” (p. 122–129 of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Decide how her message applies to the question of Internet use and government restrictions.
2. In questions of “Is it good to do _____” (i.e., Is it good to demand that ISPs treat each bit of data equally?), start asking, “Whose property is ______?” Then act accordingly.
3. Evaluate your own life. Identify areas where you may have misunderstood the principle of property rights. Resolve to change your perspective regarding property rights.

MRFC Principles: 13 (11, 12, 13)

Resources

John Dunbar, “Senators Debate Future of Web” AP, Yahoo! News, April 22, 2008.

Ayn Rand, “The Property Status of Airwaves,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Signet, 1967. pp. 122–129.

Key Points:

• Ian Usher, 44, has put everything to do with his current life on the eBay auction block in a package deal.
• He is hoping to walk away with ?230,000.
• His employer said they would give the winning bidder a two-week trial at his job with permanent status if everything works out after that.
• The Telegraph reports Usher as saying, “I am looking forward to moving on, and shedding the past. I am excited about the future, and really having no idea where events might lead me. I love the adventurous nature of the project, and am excited about a new start…Everything here is connected with that past life, and as I cannot have that life any more, then I don’t want to hang on to it desperately.”
• His friends suggest it is just a mid-life crises.
• Usher has created a website to promote the sale of his “life.” www.alife4sale.com

Conclusion:

While surely everyone would like the opportunity, at times, to do as Mr. Usher is attempting, the nature of life suggests that the stewardships we engage in are not as simple as selling everything and somehow starting over. That will, indeed, get rid of the material possessions of one’s life, but it will do nothing for the memories and the relationships that person leaves behind. The stewardship of life suggests that we use our agency to learn to overcome our trials and to increase our knowledge, experience and abilities; in short, to increase our Human Life Value. Running from every trial in our lives may appear to solve the problems, but when life is over what will we be able to say about our stewardship called life? Still, perhaps one can admire the resolve of such an individual to just dump everything pertaining to the current life and disappear into another life, another identity, another stewardship, maybe even a life worth loving.

Action Steps:

1. In a journal or a notebook, spend one hour writing everything you are thankful for and love about your life. Don’t think about the negative things or the things you don’t love at this time, unless you are truly thankful for them.
2. Write about the challenges in your life and how they, specifically can be for your good. Record some of the possible lessons you might learn from those experiences.

Reference(s):

Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Source: Telegraph, “Australian Auctions Entire Life on eBay”
Author: Lewis Carter
MRFC Principles: (3, 4, 6)

There are bigger issues at stake in this story, they too are omitted.

Key Points:

• Only 1,000 cases of polio are reported world wide. (Source: CDC/WHO)
• In Belgium, Dr. Victor Lusayu (head of Belgium’s international vaccine centre) claims that polio has been entirely eliminated from Europe. (Source: Cheng Article)
• In the US, all cases of paralytic polio since 1979 have been caused by the oral polio vaccine. (Source: DHPE)
• In the last 10 years, “vaccine caused” outbreaks have occurred in Nigeria, Dominican Reublic, Haiti, Phillippines, Madagascar, China and Indonesia. (Source: AP)
• It appears that the only substantial cause of polio in the civilized world is now – the vaccination.
• Dr. David Heymann, the World Health Organization’s top polio official admits, “It would be nice if we had a more stable oral polio vaccine, but that’s not the way it is today.
• Despite the emotional content this issue is not about whether or not its a good idea to have children vaccinated. that is a separate discussion. The issue is whether or not the government ought to be authorized to use force to override a parents choice for their children.
• Parents have self-interest in their children’s well being. Certainly no government bureaucracy is going to have more self-interest in children than parents. Government workers don’t get some magic new formula for wisdom and sound decision making just because they get a paycheck from the government.
• The marketplace of ideas cannot be controlled by force. Freedom and liberty made it possible for the discovery, development and implementation of the vaccine 50 years ago – there was no “law” required.
• Health professionals admit they “want” a better vaccine, but if you are in the business of producing the current vaccine, what is your motivation to innovate, take risks, etc., when its a criminal offense not to buy your product?

Commentary:

It may be a good idea or a bad idea to have your child vaccinated, but it is certainly an unprincipled and therefore bad idea to empower the government (any government) to use force to compel parents to inject a dangerous disease into the body of their child. The only defense of the ‘tribalist’ mentality (which always argues that individual choice is dangerous to the public – as if the public is something besides the aggregate of individuals) is that the government “knows better” how to care for children. While this may be the case in a few isolated circumstances, it is certainly not the case in general and the law does not and cannot exercise rational judgment – only people can, and the people most interested in the health and well-being of children are their parents.

Conclusion:

Should the government encourage awareness? Sure. Promote education, yes. Provide protection of individual civil rights? That is the less obvious implication of the issue – but the answer is obviously, “of course.” Oh, by the way, if you were in charge of selling the polio vaccine – do you think you could sell a lot or a little in the “free” market? It seems to me it would be like selling shoes, pencils, shirts, towels, hammers, nails, or even cell phones – not exactly a hard sell. To a well trained participant in the BOC – thoughts like these never come to mind. To the BOC, no law requiring vaccine’s means instant mass stupidity, rapid disease spread, and the abandonment of reason and self-interest.

The Point:

It’s not about polio. It’s not about vaccines. It’s not even about parental choice (though that’s close). This issue is about liberty and the proper role of government. Government is force, and force is only rightly used to protect rights, not to advance social change.

The tools of a Free Capitalist are persuasion, long suffering, ingenuity, innovation, vision and often patients. The socialists draw the gun, point it at your head and give ultimatums where their view is challenged. In which camp are you?

Action Steps:

1. Research the legal requirements for vaccinations in your community / state. Identify your options.
2. Identify individuals or groups in your community concerned about the issue. Learn their positions.
3. Discuss the issue with interested community members, your State Representative and/or State Senator.
4. Post your opinion online or write a letter to the editor of your statewide newspaper.
5. Discuss the issue and your legal options with your spouse and mature children. Decide in advance how you will respond if this becomes an issue that ever directly affects you and your family.
6. Suggest a Community Action Item to your local Free Capitalist Community Council.
7. If appropriate, suggest an amendment (in writing in detail) to the existing law to your state legislature.
8. Calendar a time to review / revisit the news on this issue in 90-days.
9. Keep your brain on, ideas flowing, and remain engaged in your community.
10. Email your friends and associates about your thoughts and planned action items.

Reference(s):

Date: Wed March 12, 2008
Source: Yahoo News – Parents may be jailed over vaccinations
Author: Maria Cheng, AP Medical Writer
MRFC Principles: (3, 4, 11, 12)

“Ms. Giani allegedly was made aware of illegal activities taking place within the division and responded by telling employees that she didn’t care if the actions of the division were legal or not – but that employees were to perform the jobs without question.”

Some Utahans are hoping that the current controversy will allow the public to clearly separate “lip-service giving do-gooders” in government positions from authentic leaders who care about civil liberties, small business and simple concepts such as fairness. At the core of this issue the question is, “How far up the chain does the corruption go?” In recent years the State has behaved with little concern for small business owners who find themselves entangled in the Department of Commerce’s web of scandal and corruption. One of the State’s highest elected officials recently commented:

“Francine Giani is the single greatest threat to small business and personal liberty in the State of Utah.”

“The world of [regulation] is reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously…It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict – after the fact.” (Greenspan, Alan. Later Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Paper given at the Antitrust Seminar of the National Association of Business Economists, Cleveland, September 25, 1961.)

Quiet whisperings have become all too common in Salt Lake City among government employees, elected officials, and community leaders about this rogue agency stealthily persecuting small businesses. Over the last 12-15 months Ms. Giani’s commissars in the State’s Division of Securities have come under the most serious scrutiny.Allegations of corruption, incompetence, mismanagement and “too many unfair prosecutions“under a cloud of controversy are growing relentlessly frequent and more substantial. Last week, apparently in an effort quell the unraveling of her department – Giani reportedly pressured Securities Director Wayne Klein to resign

“They obviously haven’t told me the results of the audit but I’ve heard words like [the division is in] ‘disarray’ and the ‘deeper we [the auditors] go, the deeper we need to go,’ “ (Representative Bird testimony last week during the Utah Legislature’s meeting of the House Business and Labor Committee.)

Klein’s resignation, however, is not likely to insulate Ms. Giani (or several other employees involved in this mismanagement such as Securities Enforcement head Mr. Michael Hines who is also suspected of official wrongdoing in the Department) from the political and legal fallout yet to come. Apparently hoping this will all blow over quickly, Ms. Giani has tried to appear disconnected recently asserting, absurdly, of Klein;

“He has been a good director, and in terms of his background in the securities industry, there is no one better.”

Utahns can only hope Ms. Giani is simply posturing here. Wayne Klein is not only personally vindictive but has a fairly well known reputation in the legal community from his previous positions both in the Utah Attorney General’s office as well as with the State of Idaho for being a loose cannon, an unjust prosector, and having contempt for legal restrictions on his own activities. It makes one wonder, in light of all the information that is now coming out, how Mr. Klein was appointed with the approval of the Governor and the legislature in the first place. According to Ms. Giani’s recent statements to the press, Klein is precisely is the “type” of regulator she strives to appoint in her department. Yet, Klein is quite simply a commissar (listen to the Free Capitalist radio broadcast archives from August 31, 2007 for elaboration). Specifically, he has increasingly become an embarrassment to government and legal professionals. He and his staff routinely fail to demonstrate even basic familiarity with the A-B-C’s of securities law. Reportedly, his own agenda is more important than the letter of the law and he is known to stammer and hesitate when trying to describe even the most basic federal standards for simple concepts such as what constitutes an accredited investor.One of Klein’s former government employers recently remarked that he, and a number of other government officials are not surprised at the recent discoveries about Klein and Giani’s philosophy of government.

“Mr. Klein is the worst kind of loose cannon. He’s often going after someone who’s offended him, regardless of the law. He’s really only effective if someone with very strong supervisory skills watches his every move and Francine is not that capable.”

Securities attorneys in Utah should not only be alarmed and offended at Ms. Giani’s defense of Klein, especially given his track record, but extremely diligent in working to ensure that there is serious reform in the Department. With Ms. Giani still at the helm she’ll likely just pick another “Wayne Klein” to run the Division. As reported by a notable Salt Lake City attorney recently,

“It has become common practice in Utah for knowledgeable, reputable, and highly educated attorneys to have to grovel to Giani, Klein (and their heretofore behind the scenes bulldog Mr. Michael Hines, Director of Enforcement in the Division of Securities). None of whom have shown much if any appreciation for the details of the law. It’s embarrassing.”

In 2007 a group of private citizens and business owners, fed up with the egregious behavior of an entire section of state government, began a private investigation on their own to look into the State’s activities. So far, the investigation has uncovered a remarkable cache of written documents and audio recording. The evidence includes recordings and transcripts of private meetings, official and unofficial conferences, lunch meetings, early morning meetings (as early as 6:30am at the home of one resident) and late night investigative activities (with government workers showing up to the homes of some “witnesses” as late as 10:00pm). The mounting evidence shows a disturbing pattern of Giani, Klein, and Hines each engaging in deception, incompetence, misstatement of the law, and abuse of the legal processes. Perhaps even more telling, the evidence is beginning to show a growing rift in the Department of Commerce between those public servants who want to carry out the legitimate duties of the Department and those like Hines who reportedly remarked recently that he hopes to retire by “writing a book” about one of the cases he’s currently investigating. The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that it is precisely this internal rift between real public servants and self-serving bureaucrats that brought about the legislative audit working to uncover the details of this brewing scandal.

“After hearing from several division staff members who expressed concerns about how the agency was being run, Rep. Jim Bird, R-West Jordan, late last year requested that the Legislative Auditor General’s Office audit the division.”

This kind of situation makes for a very unfriendly business environment and is embarrassing to everyone in government. With a formal audit underway, it appears Ms. Giani is simply buying herself time to try and get out from under the explosive details now coming to light. Consider a few embarrassing examples of the work being conducted by Ms. Cruella and her henchmen.

1. Wrongful Accusation of Criminal Behavior against Utah Citizens.
2. Misuse of the Courts and Legal Process.
3. Lying to Government Officials.
4. General Incompetence when it comes to explaining rudiments of the law.
5. Defaming Members of the Legislature who scrutinize the Department.
6. Punishing Citizens with Evidence Against the Department for their Political Activity.
7. Demanding “prior restraints” on Utah Citizens’ free speech, in an attempt to silencecriticism of the Department’s methods in public or in the courts.
8. Government employees lying to the public in order to “create” causes for investigation.
9. Disseminating confidential information obtained during investigations to private sector colleagues to enrich their business efforts.
10. Offering jobs and/or job referrals to witnesses who are willing to lie or distort the truth to defend the Department.

This kind of behavior is precisely what Ronald Reagan warned America about as early as 1964 when he deplored:

“It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of property or nationalization of private business. It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business. The machinery of this power already exists. Lowell Mason, former anti-trust law enforcer for the Federal Trade Commission, has written “American business is being harassed, bled and even blackjacked under a preposterous crazy quilt system of laws.” There are so many that the government literally can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute.” (Reagan, Ronald, A Time for Choosing, Speech given October 27, 1964)

Legislation has recently passed the Utah House of Representatives that would rein in the powers of the division and its director in an effort to secure more just handling of the Department’s responsibilities. However, as reported on FreeCapitalist Radio Monday February 12, 2008 this attempt to “rein in” the powers of Ms. Giani and her flying monkeys is being received about as well as the “Wicked Witch of the West” receiving Dorothy and her ruby slippers. For example, after Bird’s HB83 passed the Utah House, Giani defender Utah Senator Curt Bramble (R-Provo), apparently in an effort to help Giani and the Governor’s office stall the brewing controversy, strategically stalled the legislation from being considered by the State Senate indefinitely.

Reminiscent of something behind the iron curtain in the 1980s the outgoing commissar Klein remarked to the attorneys of a Utah citizen recently, who was cooperating with State legislators in their attempts to get to the bottom of the abuses going on in the Department that: because of his political activities the Division was “forced” to take tougher action. In a similar case Klein justified:

“Part of the problem is that I’ve been painted in a corner because your client has gone on the radio and publicly accused us of stuff. He’s got legislators out there trying to cut our powers because what we’re doing as if he’s entirely right in what he’s doing and government is unfairly coming after him. So ordinarily we have more flexibility but where I’ve got public attacks coming in saying we’re being accused of being unfair…[interrupted].”

Ayn Rand also famously warned us of situations like the present scandal brewing in Utah under Ms. Giani’s watch.

“This means that a businessman has no way of knowing in advance whether the action he takes is legal or illegal, whether he is guilty or innocent. It means that a businessman has to live under the threat of a sudden, unpredictable disaster, taking the risk of losing everything he owns or being sentenced to jail, with his career, his reputation, his property, his fortune, the achievement of his whole lifetime left at the mercy of any ambitious young bureaucrat who, for any reason, public or private,may choose to start proceedings against him…It is a form of persecution practiced only in dictatorships and forbidden in every civilized code of law. It is specifically forbidden by the United States Constitution. It is not supposed to exist in the United States and it is not applied to anyone-except to businessmen.”(Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 50 – from a speech given at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on Dec. 17, 1961)

The official audit of Ms. Giani and her staff is still under way. Potential legal action is reportedly pending against the State from private parties alleging damages in the hundreds of millions. Additional complaints are coming in from victims of the Department’s abusive handling methods including complaints against the Division of Real Estate, Licensing, Securities, and Consumer Protection. Transcripts and audio recordings of Commerce employees lying about Utah businessmen and their activities and other highly problematic behavior on the part of government employees are being delivered to government officials and media outlets. In the mean time, Utah citizens (the real Ma’s & Pa’s Mr. Hines is so fond of talking about while he pursues his agenda) are getting tired of being scammed by the so-called “scam busters.” Some investors have recently been told according to evidence obtained through recorded conversations that (consistent with what has been reported about Giani’s style of administration) if citizens want the State to help them they have to be willing to distort the truth and cooperate with the State’s agenda – independent of the facts involved. One local businessman recently complained,

“For more than two years now the Department of Commerce has been after me. They have come at me from every angle, from the Real Estate division, the Securities Division, Consumer protection etc. Every time, I’ve been able to demonstrate that they have no evidence against me and that I and my associates have done nothing wrong. Yet, the government continues to make horrible allegations, publicly bad mouth me and my colleagues and even accuse me of being a criminal to legislatures, business colleagues, and some of my closest associates. All of this so that Francine Giani, Wayne Klein, and Michael Hines can “look” like they’re doing their job. They’ve got all my clients in an uproar, they’ve told this story about what my business “really is,” all truth be damned, and their efforts have cost dozens of real Utahans their jobs and as essentially bankrupt me and my partners to the tune of millions of dollars. All this and not one charge filed, not one official action taken, and not one person in government responsible. There’s not even a forum where I can defend my case, I simply have to wait until these very powerful men and women are done playing politics with me, my investors, my customers, and my business. Maybe I’ll get an apology like Mr. Teran received from the Department, after they’ve succeeded in destroying my company.”

While the citizens of the State wait for the Governor to weigh in on the issue, thank goodness for good legislators and government leaders who don’t hesitate to reach for the pail of water when the Wicked Witch comes around. On a side note, sources suggest that Ms. Giani may already be preparing for her exit, vying for a position as an investigative journalist (Geraldo watch out!) back at Utah’s local Channel 2, KUTV along side consumer watchdog Bill Gephart. If it’s true, it’s likely that Ms. Giani can serve the people of Utah better there – for certainly there’s a role for consumer watchdogs. If she does return to the media perhaps she’ll feel less burdened, being freed from sticky things like State law, due process, fairness, etc.

Its time for Utahns (including our Governor) to get past the old cliché of Utah being among the “scam” capitals of the world, and start taking a closer look at the corrupt bureaucrats irresponsibly promoting that myth to the detriment of good people in a good state working hard to do many good things. Once again scandal is brewing in Utah. This time it’s the government in need of systematic reform. Perhaps Mitt would accept an invitation to come save the day in Salt Lake City one more time. Stay tuned…