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

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).

During the campaign for the Democratic nomination, Obama mocked Clinton’s primary claim that she possessed the necessary foreign policy experience to be president.

“What exactly is this foreign policy expertise?” Obama said to reporters in March, while flying from a campaign event in Texas. “Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”

In spite of these doubts, Obama praised Clinton’s credentials Monday, saying she would be able to advance America’s interests due to her knowledge of world affairs and familiarity with world leaders.

“She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world’s leaders, who will command respect in every capital, and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world,” he said.

Obama said that his new foreign policy team, which will be led by Clinton, would change America’s foreign policy for the better.

“I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new beginning for American national security,” he told reporters at the announcement.

However, Obama had expressed exactly the opposite view of Clinton during the primary campaign.

“It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected,” Obama said in a January radio ad. “Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything and change nothing.”

Obama also said Monday that he>>>>Read the Full Article

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

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

Martin Kozlowski

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

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

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

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

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.)

For example, Rolly whimsically claims that the GOP is out to “rescue its superheroes” because of a flier recently distributed for an event designed to support the “Fab Five” state legislators. Funny thing is that Rolly has no argument to back up why a normal, organized fund-raising & event is a rescue attempt. Perhaps it’s a victory rally? Of course, Rolly doesn’t see it that way, because like many in his camp he’s still too busy gloating over the Utah vouchers issue to see much of anything. In fact, Rolly’s only substantive remark in his entire essay is that “All five dutifully followed leadership’s admonition to vote for vouchers…”

The facts are however, as they say, stubborn things. They are especially difficult for Attila like bullies who call it a job to poke rhetorical fun at good men who serve their community.

Fact #1 – Vouchers.

Rolly argues that the GOP leadership is supporting these five legislators because they “dutifully” followed orders this past session. Funny thing is that three of the five campaigned in support of vouchers long before receiving any orders from anyone. Sometimes Democrats forget that to hold office you don’t actually have to wait for a leader to call you up and tell you your position.

Fact #2 – Stand-Out Legislation

Rolly glosses over all of the legislative details with a blanket accusation that none of these five elected representatives had any “stand-out legislation.” The first error in Mr. Rolly’s argument is t o think that Utahans, especially Republicans, send freshman legislatures into office solely for the purpose of writing new laws.

I think it is a serious surprise to most liberals to actually try and imagine a government whose effectiveness isn’t measured in the number of new laws passed. Additionally, Rolly ignores records like Wimmer’s where fully half of his “introduced bills” were proposed amendments to existing laws, on such important subjects such as child abuse, environmental crimes, toughening prosecution on those who hurt children, etc. Other legislation sponsored by this freshman group included immigration reform, the rights of adopted children, and the reform of certain outdated criminal codes. Of course, this isn’t “stand-out” to Rolly because it left out global warming.

It is quite obvious that Rolly doesn’t count on educated Utahans to simply hop on the Internet and take 15 minutes to view the actual records of these freshman legislator’s – which records speak for themselves (with or without the support of leadership).

Fact #3 – Republican Challengers

It is true that four of the five candidates mentioned are being challenged by members of their own party, however it is far too early to tell how serious the challenges are. The state and county conventions will play their role, and the newly elected delegates will get to decide if any of the challenges are serious enough to merit a primary election. The irony is that Rolly lumps Wimmer into the same analysis (Wimmer is the Mr. T of the group Paul, just to answer your question) – when he is not even opposed by a Republican. Wimmer, as Rollly notes, is opposed by a “former” Republican who is now running as a democrat. Small details, I’m sure, for Mr. Rolly. Think about this for a minute, Dave Hogue was in the state legislature for ten years as a Republican and has now come out of the closet as a democrat (which most of us already knew by the way.) Stubborn facts.

Rolly’s “ad hominem” humor is no substitute for “brain-on” activity. Thank goodness he writes for the Tribune, or else some voters who are actually affected by the decisions of these legislators might have been confused.

It does take a superhero these days to stand up against the politics of liberalism, socialism, and do-gooders who think that the reason a man or women is elected to office is to continue the plunder of previous legislatures. Rolly also ignores important events that are actually working to root out government abuse, waste, and corruption here in Utah, events that would not be happening without the support of men like these. For example, it will be interesting to see what tongue in cheek quarterbacking Rolly offers when the legislative audit of the Utah Department of Commerce comes out if it tarnishes the reputations of his fellow travelers such as Francine Giani, Wayne Klein, and Thad LeVar. But, we’ll leave that for a future day.

The truth of the matter is Rolly is simply trying to stoke the flames of some internal conflict with the Republican party, but as appropriate, the Republicans are best left to solving their own problems. In the end we can all be thankful that the “Superheroes” and the “A-Team” showed up this past legislative session because the alternative would likely have been some version of Mr. Rolly staring as Pinky’s “Brain” devising some new diabolical plot to take over the world. That, is certainly, frightening.

As for me, I’ll side with Representative Wimmer and his superhero colleagues, thank you.

Reference(s):

Date: Friday April 4, 2008
Source: Salt Lake Tribune – Paul Rolly: GOP Out to Rescue its Superheroes
Author: Paul Rolly
MRFC Principles:

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 text of the 2nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
• There is an argument over the meaning of the amendment. Does the “right” belong to a group of citizens – belonging to a well regulated Militia (such as the National Guard) or does the “right’ belong to all individuals?
• The Supreme Court has not ruled on these questions on the 200+ year history of the country. The current case is District of Columbia v. Heller.
• All Circuit Courts to rule so far on the question have found that the right is NOT an individual right.
• The Founders suggested that it was an individual right, as with all rights.
• Consider:

“Many Americans do not even realize that they belong to the militia of their state. They confuse their state militia with the National guard, which is a specialized reserve corps in each state trained at federal expense for immediate service. Under Title 10 [Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 paragraph (a)] of the U.S. Code, the militia of each state includes “able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become, [citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United STates who are members of the National Guard.” (Skousen, W. Cleon. Making of America. Page 694 – with corrections).

• The biggest disagreement is over the term “the People.” To the Founders this term was generally used to mean the entire collection of individual citizens, “none omitted.” In our day the term has been socialized and is used by the government to mean generally, “the people” in general where specific exclusions are allowable as determined by the Government. This is Karl Marx’s philosophy of social control by “the people” through Government – rendering the term “public” and “the people” to be alternative forms of the word “Government.”
• Many State Constitutions have incorporated the “Right to Bear Arms” but have clarified it as an individual right.

Action Steps:

1. Read Principle 219 in Dr. W. Cleon Skousen’s “Making of America.”
2. Memorize a quote from one of the Founding Fathers related to this discussion to have at your disposal for common discussion.
3. Research what it requires in your State to carry a firearm (concealed or not concealed). Obtain a permit if desired.
4. Contact your Congressional representative and your State Senator’s office to see where they stand on the issue of “individual vs. collective” rights related to firearms.
5. Research your own legal & ethical responsiblities related to being a member (or an eligible member of your family / circle of friends) of the unorganized militia of your State.
6. Contact your Governor’s Office and your State elected officials representing you to identify where they stand on the issue. Prepare a one page summary of what you learn as a result of these action items and mail it to each of these officials in a letter form – requesting their feedback.
7. Create a family and friends quiz on the following questions – research the answers and discuss them with your family/friends after having them take the quiz…
   1. Where in the Constitution of the United States is the individual citizen’s right to bear arms (own and carry firearms and other weapons) protected?
   2. How do we know that this is an individual right rather than a collective right for specific groups like State organized militia such as the National Guard?
   3. Why would the individual citizen in the United States “need” or “want” to own and carry firearms? Isn’t police force the only appropriate place for domestic use of firearms?
   4. What is the actual result of gun control laws in America since the mid 1850s? What is the inherent flaw in these laws?
   5. What is the consequence of disarming the citizenry – short term & long term?
   6. What is the legal definition of the state militia & who are each state’s militia?
   7. How many times has the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment being an individual right of citizens?
   8. What is the difference between the “right to bear arms” in general and owning a particular type of firearm like a hunting rifle, a pistol or a machine gun?
   9. What is currently required in your State if you’d like to have a weapon concealed or unconcealed on your person? In your car?
   10. What is the name of the current case pending before the Supreme Court on the subject?

Resource(s):

Date: Monday March 17, 2008
Source: Washington Post – “D.C.’s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court”
Author: Robert Barnes
MRFC Principles: (11, 12, 13)

The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it…They need to speak frankly to the market and acknowledge how bad the problems are, and acknowledge their won failures in letting this happen. This is what is needed to restore confidence…There never would have been a sub-prime mortgage crisis if the Fed had been alert. This is something Alan Greenspan must answer for.”

Professor Schwartz and the late Milton Friedman revolutionized thinking on the causes of the Great Depression in 1965 with their bombshell publication convincingly persuading Americans high and low that it was not the much maligned free-market system that had failed in the 1930’s but instead that it was “incompetent government bureaucrats at the Fed” who bore responsibility for the financial crisis. In the second article referenced above Evans-Pritchard hypothisis along the lines of what Free Capitalist radio listeners have been hearing for over a year now, that the present “crisis may make 1929 look like a walk in the park.”

Key Points:

• It took Friedman and Schwartz, 30 years later, to unmask the real culprit that caused the Great Depression (incompetent bureaucrats).
• The false theory advocated by the bureaucrats and politicians was that it was the “free market, unscrupulous capitalists, and speculating investors” that caused the Depression.
• Despite Friedman and Schwarts seminal work, the false theory is still advanced, taught and believed by American BOC culture today. This has made Americas vulnerable.
• Today’s bureaucrats and politicians are up to the same old tricks, blaming freedom, entrepreneurs and investors. See Yaron Brook’s “The Morality of Moneylending: A Short History”
• When a speculative home borrower loses a home to foreclosure, that is the “punishment” from the marketplace. Losing liberty is far more subtle.
• Laws that make “lenders” more responsible for borrowers decisions cannot increase productivity and therefore credit extensions will tighten and the market worsen

Lawmakers have recently started down the path to make it illegal for lenders to make loans where the borrower does not have “the reasonable ability to repay the loan.” However, this puts the lender in a sticky situation. Who decides, for the borrower, if he has the reasonable ability to repay the loan. Without defining key “terms” like this legislation contemplates the formula sets the stage for bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily and this makes the lenders more cautious. Credit tightens. However, the Fed is pumping more money into the market. So, excess supply of money (means cheap dollars), no or substantially less new lending means lower velocity of money (lower productivity).

Conclusion:

Alert and educated citizens should be aware of the storyline endlessly defended by bureaucrats and politicians and be on the lookout for attempts to blame our economic problems on everyone except those who were elected and those who were hired to manage the affairs of the government. Productivity not legislation or bureaucratic involvement is how America will recover from potentially the worse economic crisis in modern history. Those who keep their efforts focused on productivity will be well situated, those who do not will be consigned to telling victim stories.

Action Steps:

1. Read Yaron Brook’s “Morality of Money Lending” essay.
2. Read current Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernake’s address at Milton Friedman’s Ninetieth Birthday conference where he openly agrees with Freidman that the Fed caused the Great Depression.
3. Have a family council discussion about productivity. Openly brainstorm how your family can focus on productive, revenue creating activity.
4. Speak openly, even write letters to the editor or post online in opposition to government based solutions that seek to soften the impact of unwise borrowing.
5. Contact your Congressman or Senator’s office and make your position known about government intervention and incompetent bureaucrats being entrusted with more power.
6. Research & identify private capital alternatives as sources for items such as home purchases, car purchases, student loans, etc.
7. Consider alternatives to holding “cash” based long term investments, seek advice from a competent financial professional who understands proven principles of wealth and productivity.
8. Avoid speculation, avoid fear mongering, avoid panic -by staying informed and actively engaging in the marketplace in sound, principle based investments that are creating value for those who have been unwise in the easy money market of the late ’90s and early 2000s.
9. Commodities, gold, commodities, silver, commodities, commodities, commodities. Did I say commodities?

Resource(s):

Date: Friday March 14, 2008
Source: Telegraph.co.uk – Anna Schwartz blames Fed for sub-prime crisis
- Crisis may make 1929 look like a ‘walk in the park’
Author: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
MRFC Principles: (2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12)

“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)