9 in 10 Favor Protections for Secret Ballots

Guest Editorial | Poll Shows Voters Demand State Constitutional Protection of Secret Ballot Elections; Highest Support Among Union Households

Salt Lake City, UT – 9 out of 10 Utah voters want the state constitution to be amended to protect secret ballots, concluded a poll conducted by Wilson Research Strategies.  This poll surveyed likely voters to assess attitudes toward the issue of voting by secret ballot and found that overwhelming support for secret ballots was strongest (up to 89%) among Union households.

Chris Wilson of Wilson Research Strategies noted that, “Voters in Utah strongly support any action confirming the right of secret ballot, indicating a firmly held belief by Utahans that democracy through secret ballot should extend from elections for public office to the workplace elections for employee representation.  Union members offer even stronger support for the amendment than non-union members.  This support demonstrates a deep-rooted favorability for the democratic process among Utahans of all backgrounds.”

“With support above 80%, Utahans take a unified and non-partisan approach as a strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats endorse the amendment.  The amendment to guarantee secret ballot rights earns majority support from voters of both genders, all ages, Republicans, Democrats and Independents.  Support this universal is rare and demands the attention of elected officials,” Wilson concluded.

“We knew that support for the secret ballot was high and that securing the right to a secret ballot in the UT state constitution had widespread support.  89% confirms what we’ve been telling legislators: attempting to take this right away from voters is political suicide.  The unions have very clearly misread their membership and their continued for support for eliminating the secret ballot is seen as a crude, transparent power grab.  Utah voters, especially union members, see right through it,” said Troy Walker, SOS Ballot’s UT coordinator.

SOS Ballot is a 501c4 organization dedicated to educating the American public on the continued need for a secret ballot wherever state or federal law requires elections.  seeks to protect voters from intimidation and harassment by empowering them to vote whether they wish to have the right to a secret ballot guaranteed in their state constitution.  SOS Ballot is currently conducting initiative or legislative campaigns in Arizona, Arkansas Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.

The secret ballot was used locally as an act of post-Civil war southern reconstruction, first as a way to impose a literacy requirement on newly freed slaves.  The secret ballot also protected mostly black voters who faced physical intimidation, even lynching depending on how their vote was cast.  Secret ballots were first used statewide in the Massachusetts governor’s race 1888 and nationally in 1892 to elect President Grover Cleveland.

Contact:  Audrey Mullen or Dave Mohel at 703-548-1160

Union’s Expect Obama Payback – Seek to End Secret Ballots

Updated Guest Editorial | On Tuesday’s Glenn Beck Show, a discouraging statistic was shown. In 1999, all government spending as a portion of our national GNP was 33%. In 2009, that number stands at 39%.

An astonishing number when you consider that the United States produces over $14 trillion in goods and services annually.  If that number frightens you and raises red flags about the growth of government, then something is on the horizon which will make that number worse. And that is why we need your leadership today.

Big Labor is expecting a pay back from President Obama.  For the hundreds of millions they spent on his election, they expect him to sign an innocent sounding, yet deceptive bill called Employee Free Choice Act – better known as “Card Check.”

Card Check is a cunning device that will make unionizing companies less democratic in the process of union organizing and more prone to intimidation and harassment.  Currently, unions must have at least 30% of the employees sign cards voicing their support for a union.  In the vast majority of cases the employer will then require a secret ballot election to determine if a union will be formed.  If the new “Card Check” federal legislation is passed, unions may contact employees directly, and when they get 51% of the employees to sign a card, the right of the employees to vote by secret ballot is abolished and the workplace is automatically unionized.

Card check will dramatically speed up the unionization of America by harassment and intimidation. As a result, government will grow bigger and mandatory union dues – the main objective to Card Check – will increase Big Labor political donations to Democrats and left wing causes.  In 2008 alone, 91% of all union contributions went to Democrats.  A staggering number when you realize that Big Labor can simply take dues out of union employees’ paychecks. This is one of the biggest power grabs in recent memory.

It is inconceivable to believe government will not grow bigger and more confiscatory with a larger union presence. Government’s 39% total of our GNP will soon grow to the mid-to-high 40s if card check passes. Do we want that? Will that help or impede innovation, freedom and entrepreneurship?

Big Labor and their allies hope to accomplish this power grab by taking away a working man and woman’s right to a secret ballot.  Can you imagine if your elected officials knew how everyone voted in their districts? How many more votes do you think they would receive on Election Day?  The same logic applies to union voting. Without the privacy of the secret ballot, people become more acutely aware of the need of their jobs and their unwillingness to go against the pressure of union leaders. That is why Save Our Secret Ballot (www.sosballot.org) was organized – to protect the right of the secret ballot for all Americans.

Save Our Secret Ballot is doing this by placing on the ballot in 15-20 states a state constitutional amendment (not federal) to protect the right to a secret ballot (for exact language go to www.sosballot.org).  We want voters to know exactly what is at stake and what unions want to accomplish. Holding a public debate is the last thing unions want.  House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are ready to take away your right to a secret ballot and President Obama is ready to sign it. All that stands in its way is you!

Where you and I want public discourse and debate like the famous Lincoln – Douglas debates over 150 years ago, unions want to treat this issue like a Venezuelan policy debate – the less discussion the better.

Unions want to pass this without the American public knowing about it. Like a thief, they want to do this in the darkness of night without the glare of daylight. Unlike a thief who steals material goods which can be replaced, they want to steal freedoms that cannot be replaced.

We need your help today – not tomorrow.  Today, Monday, this freedom protecting legislation will be up for a vote in the Utah House of Representatives.  We have some Republicans still frightened of the unions.  Please help today by getting your family, friends, business associates and YOU to call your Utah State Legislator and State Senator and ask them to vote YES for HJR-8 (Save Our Secret Ballot).

You can call them at the Capitol Hill

Utah State Senate 801-538-1035
Utah House of Representatives 801-538-1029

Without your help and leadership, unions will take away a fundamental freedom. For more information, go to www.sosballot.org and help stop this power grab today!

Chuck Warren is a partner at Silver Bullet, LLC (www.silverbulletllc.org).

Utah: Records Release Escalates Charges of Gov’t Corruption

SALT LAKE CITY, January 6 – New evidence signals for the first time that prominent members of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman’s Department of Commerce may be directly involved in illegal, and sometimes criminal activities.

On Monday January 5, Utah County businessman and talk radio host C. Rick Koerber announced that he will begin releasing to the public a mountain of evidence implicating several government employees and officers.  The evidence is in the form of secret audio recordings, photographs, recordings of telephone conversations and printed documents authored by Utah officials.  Beginning Friday January 9, 2008 Koerber has announced his plan to publish in a series information releases including web links to audio files and .pdf documents.

“Given the current climate and the behavior of these people I just decided that it wasn’t worth letting things continue with business as usual,” said Koerber. “I think its best for everyone if the truth was revealed and everyone can see how things are done by some of Utah’s top ranking bureaucrats.  A few key individuals seem to enjoy ruining the reputations of sincere, hard working men and women and its costing normal every day citizens their jobs, their retirement, and in some cases their life savings.  I bet not a single one of them has ever created a real job and several of them seem to think they are above the law.”

The evidence being released implicates several Department of Commerce personnel including Utah Securities Division Enforcement Director Michael Hines, Enforcement Analyst Jennifer Korb, Licensing examiner A. Gary Bowen, former Division Director Wayne Klien and former Division of Real Estate officer John Brown.  Among the more then fifty recorded segments and documents in Koerber’s possession government employees are revealed lying, admitting conspiracy, misstating the law, admitting coercion, threatening witnesses, leaking protected information, bragging about excessive power and discretion and in at least one instance possible violations of a federal court rule prohibiting certain disclosures related to a grand jury proceeding.

Koerber is part of a growing number of Utah businessmen turning to State lawmakers and to the courts in an effort to reign in the alleged abuses by appointees, staff and employees in Gov. Huntsman’s Department of Commerce.

Henry S. Brock, a Utah based CPA associated with Americans for Civil Rights, is another local businessmen who is fed up with the Utah Department of Commerce and has created a laundry list of documented abuses on the ACR website where a petition is being circulated to pressure lawmakers to take action.  “Whether you are a doctor, contractor, realtor, or financial advisor, we all have similar concerns,” writes Brock, who uses the recently released State Audit of one division inside the Department to call attention to what he calls widespread abuse.

In what is becoming increasingly discussed nationally, Utah’s state officials, under Gov. Huntsman’s tenure, are now ranked, according to a recent study published by the New York Times, as one of the top 15 most corrupt States in the union.

In December of 2007 lawmakers approved a State audit of the Department’s Division of Securities which uncovered an array of problems including impropriety, internal conflict, coercion, violations of due process, and numerous other failures in its official 43-page report released in July of 2008.

“The audit only uncovered the tip of the iceberg” claims Utah businessman James Claybourn.  “If you read the audit carefully you’ll notice that it only looked at a few cases, and that it also describes the need for much further investigation.”

Claybourn, Brock and Koerber are part of a growing business community increasingly disillusioned by the lack of attention and scrutiny being directed at the widely reported abuses by the Department which operates under the sole elective oversight of Huntsman and his appointee Department of Commerce Director Francine Giani.

Koerber hopes that by announcing the systematic release of the recordings and documents he’s been gathering over the last several years that a more thorough investigation of the Department will be conducted and that the State legislature will not take only small, token efforts at reform.

“Look, the situation in the Department of Commerce is out of control.  They brag about being able to break the law, about ruining people’s lives and they regularly demonize small businessmen who are supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty,” extols Koerber.  “In today’s financial climate bureaucrats should not be freely spreading lies and acting like they are above the law, forgetting that small businessmen and women are citizens deserving of equal protection under the law.  It’s just plain wrong.”

In fact, the Department has had to drop fraud charges and issue public apologies in the past for erroneously accusing businessmen of fraud and misconduct using punitive premature media, for example its March 30, 2007 release related to Gary W. Teran and Carl A. Page of First Western Advisors.

The Department has been gaining a growing number of critics that extends beyond the business community.  Over the last year, several government insiders, including at least one former Executive Director and one former Division of Securities Director, have suggested that a “changing of the guard” is urgently needed along with several substantial reforms.

The Utah legislature has also begun addressing the reported impropriety, however, several prominent Utahans, are concerned that the gravity of the situation is not being fully appreciated by lawmakers.

“The bills [being proposed] are grossly inadequate and do not go far enough to protect the constitutional and civil rights of all licensees under the Department of Commerce, including the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, the Division of Real Estate, and the Division of Securities,” says Brock.  “Regulators are not above the law, and are accountable for their acts in relation to the public trust reposed in them…the Legislative Auditor’s Official Report said that employees within the agency themselves fear to speak-up due to reprisals, and the licensees are certainly fearful of retribution; hence, an unwillingness to speak out on legislation such as this. I have no doubt there may be reprisals against me for speaking up.”

One disturbing example of such reprisals involves State Representative Carl Wimmer who began looking into potential abuses by Huntsman’s Department in 2007.  After learning of Wimmer’s inquiry, then Securities Division Director Wayne Klein fired off an email to State Attorney General Mark Shurtleff suggesting that Wimmer should not be trusted and that his efforts be downplayed because he was an investor in one of the companies being investigated by Klien.  Wimmer, however turned out not to be an investor in any company being investigated by the Division.

“A government bureaucrat, trying to sabotage a State legislator to protect his territory- this is exactly what they do.” said Koerber.  “If you accuse them of wrong doing they line up a row of supposed victims of fraud-never mind that the story of fraud might be entirely made up by the regulators-and suggest that by attacking the government you are somehow harming or being insensitive to potential victims.”

In one of the audio recordings yet to be released by Koerber, Klien can be heard justifying his division’s targeting of Koerber himself because of statements made about Klein on Koerber’s his talk radio program and because of legislative scrutiny being brought on the Department by Rep. Wimmer and his colleague Rep. Jim Bird, pressure which Klein seems to attribute to Koerber.

–Partial Transcript-

Within a month of the announcement of last year’s audit and amidst a storm of controversy Klein resigned from his position as Securities Director.  But in commentary released after the release of the official audit, Audit Manager Tim Osterstock immediately preempted any suggestion that Klein’s resignation would solve the problem.  “It’s not just a director, it’s an organization,” Osterstock said.

One Department of Commerce insider, who requested to remain unnamed for fear of reprisal, confided about the Department and actions taken by Executive Director Francine Giani, “You have no idea how crazy this place is.  Its all about territory, power and egos.  Once the audit came out Francine put on a happy face but things around here got put on lock down. Quite frankly, so long as Francine and people like Michael Hines have free reign, I would hate to be a business owner in Utah.”

Regarding Koerber’s January 5th announcement that these recordings will be released to the public, this same insider remarked, “This is extraordinary evidence, I hope it starts to get the kind of attention it deserves.”

Huntsman who has been Utah Governor since 2004, appointed Giani to her present position in 2005, and has remained silent since the scandal started brewing in 2007.  Several businessmen, lawmakers, citizens organizations and government insiders now appear committed to making sure his Department doesn’t escape legitimate scrutiny and reform.

[Note: C. Rick Koerber is the Founder and President of FreeCapitalist Enterprises, LLC  that parent company in charge of operations for FreeCapitalist Daily]

Related Content on the Web:

• January 05, 2009 – FranklinSquires Press Release
• Audit blasts state securities division
• Utah’s securities chief is resigning under cloud
• Francine’s Domain – Scandal Brewing in Utah State Government
• Rogue Agency Arrests Utah Mom
• Audit: Corruption, Failure and Incompetence in Utah Government
• Open Letter to the Legislature
• Division of Securities Apology Regarding Teran and Page

The U.S. Constitution: An EULA

By Ammon Nelson

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.

An Ear for An Ear?

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 13 August 2008 | The Fairness Doctrine, under the Media Ownership Reform Act, a bill that would force broadcasters to give equal air time to opposing sides of issues, has made the rounds in Congress lately. After being brought up by Democrats for consideration a few months ago, it was countered by the Republican sponsored Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, a bill that would ban the Fairness Doctrine from ever being passed. In childish response, House Speaker Pelosi then vowed that the Broadcaster’s Freedom Act would never come to the floor for a vote. At a virtual stalemate, both bills have been tabled as Congress has broken for their summer vacation. There has been talk that the Fairness Doctrine could be brought back to light after the inauguration of a new president.In covering the ongoing banter, both the liberal and conservative wings of the media have focused almost exclusively on how they perceive the doctrine affecting their rights to free speech. Liberals feel that talk radio and other venues have been unfairly overrun by right wing nuts and that their side of the story isn’t being heard. Conservatives feel that regulated free speech is a horrific contradiction of terms that can never work. And, while free speech is important enough to have been the front-runner amendment in the Bill of Rights, focusing on it alone will cause us to miss the bigger picture—the fact that freedom itself is at stake in this debate.

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 Wrong Approach to Rebuilding Iraq

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 12 August 2008 | As the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on Iraq’s stockpile of resources, outrage erupted on the Senate floor. And that outrage will most likely spill over into the minds and hearts of many Americans.

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.)

The United States Flag: Symbol of Freedom!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources

Declaration of Independence

The History of Flag Day USFlag.org

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

Flag Acts (United States), Wikipedia.org

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

Friends of the American Revolution

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

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

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

Francis Scott Key, wikipedia.org

Supreme Court to Review Broadcast Profanity Rules

HIGHLAND, UT | 27 March 2008 | Arguments about the proper role of government regarding the First Amendment have recently flared as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed its rules about “fleeting expletives.” The basic argument in this story is whether government has the power to regulate and fine networks when expletives are used during live broadcasts.

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

Maryland Approves Cell Phone Ban

ALPINE, UT | 24 March 2008 | The proper role of government at any level is to protect the individual’s inalienable rights. Many times, in an effort to do the right thing, officials make the wrong decision. They mean well, but are misdirected. We see this on the state and local levels as much as on the federal level. The Maryland bill banning cell phone use while driving is such a case in point. While the effort is good-natured, it simply is not within a government’s proper role.

Key Points:

• The bill prohibits cell phone use while driving, including talking on the phone and text messaging.
• The bill provides for only a secondary infraction, meaning police would not be able to pull someone over for just using the phone while driving, but the citation could be added if the driver was speeding or has other infractions.
• Proponents to the bill have attempted for many years to put this bill on the books.
• The bill still would need to pass the Maryland State House before it could become a law. Ms. Wyatt reports that it is not clear whether it would pass the House.

Conclusion:

The Founding Fathers were smart about the way they set up the governing processes in the United Sates. They drew up a Constitution that very specifically defined the proper roles available to the federal branches. And the intent was to push issues such as this cell phone use down to more local levels. So far, the good thing is this bill is considered on the state level in Maryland, the highest level at which it belongs. The basic idea is the closer to the people a decision like this gets, the better it will be for those people. They will know the legislators on a personal basis and will have more sway in their opinions.

Many people believe that since one of the proper roles of government is to protect life, there ought to be laws such as this to protect its citizens. This is, however, misapplied, for it robs the citizen of many other rights. The citizen should be allowed to think for himself to make the most relevant decision for himself. It may be true that using a cell phone while driving impairs the driver’s ability to respond to road conditions.

Some people may respond by saying this type of bill is too trivial to worry about, especially while the supreme court is arguing gun control and similar issues; however, if you give the government an inch, they’ll take your whole life. Best to stop them in their tracks on these smaller matters rather than waiting until they want to take your guns and your house and your life.

Action Steps:

1. Read “The Proper Role of Government” by Ezra Taft Benson.
2. Review current bills in your area, on every level. Pinpoint the ones that violate the proper role of government as outlined by Benson.
3. Contact those legislators in your area who are grappling with those issues and discuss with them your opinion.

Reference(s):

Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Source: Washington Times, “Senate OKs Ban on Driver Phoning”
Author: Kristen Wyatt
MRFC Principles: (11,12)

Supreme Court to Decide on “Right to Bear Arms.”

ALPINE, UT | 17 March 2008 | Does an individual citizen of the United States have a Constitutional “right” to bear arms? 72% of the US public believes so, but few can even articulate a good reason why. Can you? Stop reading for just a second and pick up a pencil and jot down an explanation of your own understanding related to the issue. Answer the question in simple terms. “Does an individual citizen of the United States have a Constitutional “right” to bear arms (own and carry a firearm)?” Read more

Next Page »