Many of us who know Rand’s work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that “Atlas Shrugged” parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity <<<Read the Full Story>>>

Gennady Zyuganov told the party’s annual congress the Communists should make maximum use of the growing public discontent caused by the economic downturn to try to restore their political strength.

“The wind of history is blowing in our sails again … At this time of crisis the world of imperialism is starting to die. We are standing on the threshold of political and social shifts,” Zyuganov said in a 2-hour speech opening the congress.

Russia’s Communists ruled the Soviet Union for eight decades and remained a major opposition force for several years after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991.

But the party has since lost much of its authority and many analysts say it is too weak to seriously challenge for power.

The Russian authorities are trying to minimise the impact of the financial crisis by promising billions of dollars of state aid. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has pledged higher social payments to the needy and lower taxes for business.

“The authorities are clearly not coping with managing the country … A mass social protest is brewing and it is hard to predict now when and in what shape it will explode,” Zyuganov said.>>>>Read the Full Article

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military’s role in domestic law enforcement…>>>READ THE FULL STORY

Key Points

• The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the greatest and most significant examples of proper use of free speech. After seeing that their cries for change had fallen on deaf ears, the Founders set forth a system of checks and balances that would allow for grievances to be effectively addressed.
• Regulation of free speech is a removal of those checks and balances. If one cannot address his views of a problem without fear of sanction, he has no avenue in which to protect his freedoms.
• While the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provide direct sanctions against speech, it takes steps in that direction by limiting the amount that can be said. Effectively slicing broadcast time in half, it forces stations to cap the discussion from either side of any issue. Failure to provide equal airtime to either side (or to find someone willing to fill the necessary time slots for both sides) would result in sanctions.
• Plato said, “Where no contradiction is evident, there is no cause for reflection.” Opposing views are needed in the debate process to help us refine our views of truth and error.
  However, forcing the public to listen to views that are unprincipled or flat-out wrong will cause gradual acceptance of these ideas. Sales trainings often teach that repeated exposure to a concept will eventually break down objections and build familiarity and acceptance. This is also a tactic of the socialist agenda.
• Continued exposure to diametrically opposed ideas will lead to schizophrenic confusion and inaction (if the public are dumb enough to not turn off the radio when needed). Liberals foster this sense of helplessness in order to create a need for and dependence on government solutions, which is also a tactic of the socialists.
• In the free market system intended by the Founders, there is no need for a doctrine to mandate fairness. People are free to share their opinions and the system will sort out good from evil, truth from concoction. Dollars follow value and market will see that voices that are meant to be heard are heard.

Conclusion

Because a free market system will see that truth is brought to the forefront, one must question the motives of anyone who seeks to regulate or eliminate that system. If elected officials are doing what they believe is right, they will feel no need to regulate what is said about their actions. As they often have no idea what is right or do things that they know to be wrong, they fear people’s opinions and shy away from criticism.

It has been said that no single drop feels that it is responsible for the flood. But, regulated speech is always one of the first drops to hit the masses as the floodgates of socialism are opened. Viewing the Fairness Doctrine as either fair or harmless shows a wanton disregard for the principles that maintain and guard our freedoms. To see such a doctrine being considered in a free country is ludicrous. To see that it is being pushed by liberal minds who have often considered themselves the defenders of free speech is infuriating.

Action Items

1. Read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
2. Post here as to what you believe the Founders intended with this amendment and how Americans have mistranslated that intent.
3. Consider contacting your Congressman to express your concern about the loss of freedom that the Fairness Doctrine would lead to.
4. Support freedom in talk radio—listen to FreeCapitalist Radio live or via podcast, or check your local listings for a chanel in your area.

MRFC Principles: (7, 9, 11, 12)

Source

“Fairness Doctrine Vote Not In The Cards”, FMQB.com, Aug 1, 2008.

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)

The reason for the outrage—while Americans have been paying the lion’s share of the bill for Iraqi reconstruction, Iraq has been building up a budget surplus that is projected to reach $80 billion by year’s end. Since 2003 the “United States has put about $48 billion toward reconstruction.” Spending by Iraq for its own reconstruction has been significantly less. Rising oil prices have caused Iraq’s revenues to soar, yet they are spending American taxpayer money to rebuild their nation. “The export of crude oil accounted for 94 percent of Iraq’s revenues from 2005 to 2007, the GAO reported.”

The outrage is understandable. The war and reconstruction have been costly. Despite buzz that the war has been all about oil money, major oil contracts have been handed out almost exclusively to non-American companies. Additionally, Americans were told that this was a cost they would not be responsible for. “Bush administration officials said on the eve of the war that Iraqi oil money would pay for reconstruction.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as telling the House Appropriations committee, “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.’”

With an already troubled economy, many Americans have questioned covering the cost of the war itself, let alone the costs of rebuilding. Sen. Carl Levin says, “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves.” And, while I agree that this should not be the duty of the American tax payer, I would say that it is equally inexcusable for us to push Iraqis to use government dollars for projects that should be privately funded. If Iraq is to ever have true freedom (something we don’t even have here), our focus cannot be the amount of money they do or don’t have. Our focus has to be adherence to the principles that form and guarantee freedom.

Key Points

• War and its devastations create a uniquely strenuous circumstance. The needs of the people are magnified as basic utilities, systems, and resources are rendered inoperable. Regardless of circumstance, principle is ignorant of need. God is the author of prosperity and He does not play dice with the universe. Principles govern at all times and in all conditions. When need is used as the basis for policy decisions, principle is discarded and freedom and prosperity will consequently die. It is when needs are greatest that principle must be adhered to if lasting solutions are to be found.
• For example, it would have been much more convenient for our Founders to avoid war with Great Britain and just remain subject to the crown than to stand for that which they knew to be right. Yet, had they chosen any path other than the principled one, we would not be the country we are today with the freedoms we enjoy.
• The Iraqi Government will never be able to stand and protect a free people if it is built on a flawed foundation. There are two major flaws being ignored in this foundation:
  • Encouraging the government of a prospective free nation to be the owner of oil reserves and incomes (or of any “public” property).
  • Establishing the habit of using government incomes to meet the needs of the people.
• Both of these flaws are plays taken straight out of the communist handbook. E.C. Riegel said, “When government undertakes to solve man’s problem for him it undertakes the mastery of society and it cannot be both master and servant.”

Conclusion

It is a difficult thing to perceive that the American Government can help establish a proper framework and set a proper example of freedom when we have strayed so far here at home.

Even if the Founding Fathers had chosen to enter a war like this (which they would not have chosen), they would clearly see the dangerous precedent being set here. While it has long been that oil and its revenues have been the property of the Iraqi government, this practice should be abolished in the process of setting up a free nation. Ownership of oil and its subsequent revenues should be private. James Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” I have never had to endure the immediate ravages of war and therefore have no concrete understanding of what it would be like. Regardless of the calamities, however, I believe that if I were an Iraqi, my request would be simple: “Let freedom ring, and let it ring completely.”

Action Items

1. Recognize teaching opportunities as you hear others complain that the Iraqi Government isn’t covering the cost of reconstruction. Share how freedom can’t be achieved by creating a socialistic welfare state.
2. Ponder difficult moments of need in your life. Do you stick to principle, regardless of the gravity of the situation?
3. Consider how you offer help to others. Do you teach them to help themselves, or do you create dependence?

MRFC Principles: 1 (1, 3, 13)

Sources

CNN, Iraq’s oil-fueled surplus could hit $80 billion, report says, CNN.com, August 6, 2008

Robert H. Reid, US officials defend Iraqi budget surplus, Associated Press, August 6, 2008

E.C. Riegel, Private Enterprise Money, a Non-Political Money System, 1944 (For more of Riegel’s writings, click here).

James Madison, speaking on the house floor, concerning a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees from San Domingo, 1794.

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)

Such is the nature of pork-barrel spending, often found in the form of congressional earmarks – “discreet” allocations for funding tacked on to congressional legislation, like parasites hitching a ride on a giant whale. Like all parasites, they seek their own political survival by siphoning off some of the blood of the nation (in the form of dollars collected through taxes) to bestow upon their constituency in return for political favors. The legitimacy of the legislation to which they attach their parasitic mouths is their guarantee that their presence will not be challenged, for fear of impeding the great work of Congress.

In a 1936 Baltimore Evening Sun editorial, H. L. Mencken alluded to this state of affairs when he wrote that American government is “a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

Key Points:

• An earmark refers to congressional provisions directing approved funds to be spent on specific projects (or directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees).
• Typically, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.
• Such insertions are generally done with very little, if any transparency, and rarely are legislators held accountable for their actions
• Critics argue the ability to earmark Federal funds should not be part of the legislative appropriations process
• Supporters of earmarks however, feel that elected officials are better able to prioritize funding needs in their own districts and states and that it is more democratic for these officials to make discreet funding decisions than unelected civil servants.
• Congress’ year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains nearly 10,000 Congressional earmarks worth $10.4 billion, according to a comprehensive database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
• Some states, such as Utah, have rules that require earmarks to be relevant to the bill to which they are attached.

Commentary:

Many politicians have decried the abuse of earmarks (if not their existence), and have called for everything from quotas to moratoriums on the practice. But the common sentiment among politicians seems to be that it’s not any earmark in particular but just that there’s too many that’s the problem. It’s not surprising that such a unprincipled stand has resulted in nothing being done about any earmarks – no one (with the rare exception of Ron Paul) is willing to surrender their sole source of power and influence. Without the ability to hand out loot to the unearned whose claims are based on need, pull, and graft, many congressmen would essentially be out of a job.

Without any consideration of principles and the proper role of government, the debate over earmark spending will never rise above an argument over which earmarks are more well-deserved. When the government gets in the business of competing with the efforts of private citizens and business, the consequences are unavoidable. Businesses who find themselves competing with an entity with limitless pockets and the ability to restrict competition with force either withdraw from the marketplace or join the line of claimants asking for government dollars to fund their efforts. The normal, healthy operation of the free market is distorted by the money being handed out without value given in exchange (only pull and political favor), distorting prices, displacing industry, and creating no incentive for efficiency or accountability.

The private entrepreneur succeeds or fails on the merits of the value he creates in the community. Without the validation of payment received from customers served, he cannot prosper. He must be tireless in service, ruthless in efficiency, and always innovating, or he will not profit, and will eventually go out of business. The government program, subsidy, or bureaucracy, however, receives its funds and carries out its business with no need to consider any fiscal principles – including the validated creation of value through exchange – and survives on the ability of its sponsors to appeal to the collective guilt of the public for another round of budget funding. Such a system is nothing less than a cancer that slowly destroys economic prosperity, as it replaces individual productivity with collective looting as the occupation of choice for an entire generation of citizens.

In this election year, at schools and civic centers across the nation, as citizens voice their grievances to next year’s potential looters, you can witness the parasitic disease in person. Whether it’s concerns about jobs or the need for a new cultural center, the socialist mentality is the same – if only this politician could deliver some much-needed funds from the treasury, then our lives would be better. With money flowing from the federal budget to every corner of the country, it’s not hard to imagine why no one would want to feel left out. It’s the looter’s creed: if it’s there to be had, I’d better get mine before someone else gets it all.

Action Steps:

• Research what legislation is currently being considered, and contact your Congressman to express your opinion on any earmark spending involved (www.house.gov, earmarks.omb.gov)
• Visit the websites of the organizations that advocate transparency and acccountability in government spending (earmarkwatch.org, www.sunlightfoundation.com, www.taxpayer.net)
• Read Frederick Bastiat’s “The Law” – What is meant by the term “legal plunder”? (http://http://www.fee.org/library/books/thelaw.asp)
• Track US Congressional Earmarks Via Google Earth!

MRFC Principles: (9, 10, 11, 12)

References:

Pork Three Ways
http://reason.com/news/show/125689.html

How Congressional Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Undermine State and Local Decision-making
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1266.cfm

Despite proclamations, earmarks continue
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39574&dcn=todaysnews

‘Pig Book’ names congressional porkers
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/02/pork.spending/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Key Points:

• The FCC has recently changed its policy making it a violation for broadcasters to allow “fleeting expletives” to be aired. Previously, such fleeting expressions were allowed under certain circumstances.
• A federal appeals court said the new policy was invalid and could violate the First Amendment. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.…” The federal appeals court is in essence saying the FCC ruling is an act of Congress abridging the freedom of speech.
• The Founders’ intent with this prohibition against the federal government was intended to protect those who chose to speak out against the government and was not intended to protect profanity or other vices.
• William Blackstone, predecessor of the Founders and British proponent of man’s rights, stated in 1758, “Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public….But if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his temerity.” Profanity is, in effect, improper and mischievous in a moral society.
• The FCC’s appeal is that the court has left the FCC accountable for “the coarsening of the airwaves” with no authority to address the situation.
• The involved networks say the old policy of allowing “fleeting expletives”, in place for 30 years, worked well and should not be suddenly changed.
• The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall.

Conclusion:

The debate over rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are important to a thinking and vigilant individual. One of the gems of the United States Constitution, the right of an individual to express himself should be protected for the individual. Clearly understanding this principle is the duty of each citizen. Also, understanding the government’s proper role in this matter is a critical element. Our Founding Fathers believed and taught that the Constitution was built upon the foundation of morality. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Further, Benjamin Franklin noted, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Does the government have the right to regulate the use of certain words over the airwaves of the country? A moral society chooses to regulate itself through independent constraint and general respect for one’s neighbors.

Action Steps:

1. Review the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
2. Read Principle 216 of W. Cleon Skousen’s Making of America.
3. Consider the statements by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin quoted above. Discuss in a family council meeting how to remain free under the Constitution by living virtuous lives.
4. Read the 30-year old ruling between FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation.

MRFC Principles: (3, 4, 11, 12)

Resources

Mark Sherman, AP. “Court Will Examine Profanity Rules,” March 17, 2008

The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Making of America. National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS), Washington, D.C. 1985. p. 688-9

Skousen, W. Cleon. The 5,000 Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World. NCCS, Washington, D.C. 1981. p. 49, 56

“The very first amendment to our Constitution include the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away. I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that nay discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides.”

Key Points:

• Radio Broadcasting is already heavily regulated, with licenses (government permission slips) themselves being worth millions.
• Talk Radio as we know it did not exist BECAUSE of regulation 20 years ago.
• Radio station owners and broadcasters are self-interested and seek a profit.
• There are no “public” airwaves, their are government controlled airwaves. This is part of the problem. How the American people have tolerated government “owning” the airwaves for the people is mind boggling.
• Who decides if “all” sides of an issue are “adequately” represented. Do all “issues” have discernible sides?

Commentary:

Tribe mentality aka collectivism sees contradictory ideas as threats, their expression as assault, and force as the remedy. Persuasion is not in the mental conceptual framework of brain-off, emotionally driven lawmakers who want to “make everything fair.” Of course, they don’t have the faintest idea of what fair is. “Fair” to a collectivist means getting what they want. This is what the legislation is all about.

There is no real chance of the “fairness doctrine” coming back today, but it could happen in the near future. More than likely this is a political threat to certain broadcasters to carry more “liberal” talk shows that are desirable in the minds of certain lawmakers. The threatened financial burden on broadcasters just to lobby against the legislation is enough to change radio.

Conclusion:

President Bush’s rhetoric is nice, but the real problem here is that the FCC and congress have any control over the speech on the airwaves. Additionally, his worn out reference to the “public airwaves” is insulting to free men and women who know that this is simply modern vernacular for “government airwaves.” Thank goodness for talk radio, thank goodness for talk radio listeners.

Even conservatives get this one wrong. Its not just that the idea of the “fairness doctrine” is wrong, the government’s approach to the entire subject of broadcasting is wrong. There is no fairness in letting government bureaucrats decide what is fair speech content in any medium. Productivity, and it alone is the standard for business survival.

Recently I had a government regulator suggest that if I wanted his highly questionable, oppressive and likely illegal tactics to end, I should stop criticizing the government on the radio. Of course, this is the purpose of political speech and mediums such as broadcast, print, film, etc. Should we have a “fairness” doctrine for movies and magazines and newspapers and while we’re at it – would these same lawmakers suggest that we have a fairness doctrine in elections – making sure there is always an opponent to their re-election representing every side of every issue?

Action Steps:

1. Read Ayn Rand’s 1964 Essay, “The Property Status of Airwaves.”
2. Listen to more talk radio. Refer your friends.
3. If you are interested, post your opinion online, and while you do realize that some commissar (commie-czar) might be advocating in the near future that you ought not to be able to do that unless your adversaries are given equal time and access.

Reference(s):

Date: Tuesday March 11, 2008
Source: Austin American-Statesman – Bush: ‘Fairness Doctrine’ unfair
Author: Ken Herman
MRFC Principles: (8, 10, 11, 12)