Jesus is a Capitalist
“…and why that matters for you.”

We live in a day and time where the philosophy of Marx is ritualistically repackaged and distributed as the contemporary gospel of Jesus Christ.  As a result those of us who have been raised in a predominantly Christian culture have probably adopted some pretty dumb ideas, including some pretty devastating notions about God and His Son Jesus Christ.  Even worse, because we have these ideas — without much thinking — we are often determined to defend our views at all costs.  But what if those things that we’ve been trained, taught and educated to believe — aren’t quite true?

Consider — we live in a day and time where most people think that Jesus was against individualism.  Therefore, in our most noble sentiments we advocate collectivism.  But, is it possible that Jesus might not have taught us to value the group over the individual?

In our post-industrial age, most of us have come to believe Jesus was an altruist.  Therefore, as a sign of our devotion to higher thinking —without giving up our iPhones or air-conditioned automobiles — we are actually proud to be suspicious of strong willed, driven, producers who invent, organize, and develop the social, economic and political accomplishments that make the lives we live today possible.  But, is it possible that the fundamental teachings of Jesus were directly opposed to altruism?

Without questioning our day-to-day assumptions we (as a people) have generally come to view Jesus as the great teacher who admonished us to care for the poor.  Therefore, as a culture we celebrate the practice of devaluing, criticizing and sometimes even persecuting those who dare to set out on a course to deliberately prosper.  We decry those who consequently think its possible to “get rich quick” while at the same time secretly envying the supposed power of the wealthy.  “If they’d only be more generous,” we say to ourselves and then to each other.  But, is it possible that God’s plan might actually be that each of us individually should live so as to cultivate our own surpluses from which we care for ourselves, our families, our needs, our wants, and in principled ways – our poor neighbors?

In summary, we live at a time when the dominant social paradigm actually undermines the philosophical revolution that enabled us to become the most free, prosperous, and generous people in modern times.

The consequence of such uncritical acceptance of repackaged Marxism is that most of us live our lives in a constant quandary of contradiction.  We privately set goals, choose our paths, and grapple with our values and dreams – but publicly we make sure not to look like we want success too badly or that deep down we’re actually hoping that the American dream might still be possible  “for me.”  We watch television game shows, rooting for the “average Joe” to become a millionaire, but go about our political lives certain we know better than millionaires how to use their money for good and therefore lobby the government to do just that, saying to ourselves, “It’s only fair.”

Similarly, in a strange cult-like sense of obedience, we’ve been conditioned to regularly try and demonstrate our allegiance to the — Marxist, not Christian — concept that we are dedicated to producing everything we can while at the same time being contented with having only what we need or maybe just a little bit more or a little less.

Without questioning these kinds of assumptions we go to church and sing, “O Babylon O Babylon we bid thee farewell” while during the week we quietly search out the secrets supposedly taught by the Richest Man in Babylon.  We want to be good people but we desperately don’t want to be broke.  “Alas, if I wasn’t such a good person,” we tell ourselves, “I wouldn’t have any problems making more money.”

We want to care for the poor – but we look in our savings accounts and don’t see very much money – so we pass the buck and say to the government instead, “you should do it.” Practically, we advocate for free health care to help the poor and underprivileged, leaving unspoken the natural law of modern politics, namely that since we see ourselves as deserving, we’re secretly hoping to get some of that free health care for ourselves.  Is it possible that it’s not Jesus who taught the supposed virtue of “something for nothing?”

As many of you know, several years ago I started working on a book entitled “God is a Capitalist.”  It has since become the permanent project on my “drawing board.”  Rest assured, it will get published.  But so what?  Well, as I’ve worked on the book over the last several years, on occasion there have been a few people who have listened to me at Free Capitalist radio, or have read different articles here, and have taken issue with my characterization of “God” as being a “Capitalist.”  Imagine.

Most recently, a fellow who I don’t think I know, named Nick Boyer, sent me a few messages in the early hours of the morning, challenging me — in a very sarcastic way I might add — to explain myself.  You see Nick’s position is that if I were correct that God and His Son are capitalists, then the whole Bible story would be different.  Well, I don’t think Nick is very far from the truth.

You see, I have come to see the “whole Bible story” as much different than what is taught so casually in our modern culture.  The question I constantly ask myself when I hear someone talking about “what Jesus would do” is, “Are you sure?” It’s a healthy challenge, I think, to make sure that our ideas are indeed our own – that we’ve adopted them with purpose and through decision, rather than simply absorbing ideas – ameba like – uncritically accepting the philosophy of men or any individual man.

So why does this matter to you?

Answer.  In a nutshell, it means everything.  Your notion of God and what he’s like (or if he even exists at all) is an over-arching mental construct that influences—directly or indirectly—every thought you have.  The significance of this is that, as you know, “ideas have consequences.”  If you’ve adopted, intentionally or unintentionally, some of the dumb ideas I’ve alluded to above, you’re doomed to struggle with your own pursuit of happiness, your level of personal drive, passion and commitment, your determination to find salvation, and your own effort to live by sincere discipleship.

In short, bad ideas about such fundamental notions as God, his character and attributes, and his plan for you, create personal road blocks to living the best life you can be living, right now.  Is this you?

Do you ever struggle with these questions about your life, your happiness, and finding the motivation to live a passionate and committed life?  Are you focused on the definite major purpose God has revealed to you about the very unique and specific reason you are here in mortality?  I’m pretty sure these questions, and more like them, reflect a common condition for all of us who contemplate God and our place in this world.

Similarly, all of us have adopted ideas uncritically, and have suffered the result.  The question is, when we start to realize this, what will we do about it?

In the final analysis if we have uncritically and carelessly adopted ideas about God and his plan, ideas that form the basis of assumptions we make every day about politics, law, society, morality, neighborliness and everything else, then our own thinking is the reason we struggle excessively with feelings of negativity, fear, doubt, worry, frustration, cynicism, and a general feeling of victimhood.

The remedy to this is a correction of ideas.  Yes, I know that may come as a shock to some, but ideas sometimes – oftentimes – need correcting.

My purpose in advocating the notion that “God is a capitalist” is exactly related to this concept.  I am intentionally challenging the assumptions of our dominant Christian culture. Because, if we view God as a socialist, then the path we are doomed to follow is unpleasant in infinite proportions.

By advocating the idea that God is a capitalist, I’m intentionally setting out an argument that invites us to question our assumptions.  Is it possible, for example, that God — not the devil — is the one who inspires great architects, engineers, and innovative businessmen?

Is it possible that God wants us to be happy, for our own sake, rather than sacrificing our lives and our happiness for the supposed good of others?

Is it possible that capitalists feed more hungry, cloth more naked, and liberate more captives than all the well intentioned government officials, bureaucrats, and non-profit charities combined?

Is it possible that Jesus might be more unhappy with us when we give up and trudge through life than when we focus and pursue, with vigor, our desired course?

Lastly, is it possible that God wants us to value individual freedom more than we value the redistribution of society’s wealth?

When I advocate that “God is a Capitalist,” I’m intentionally challenging my audience to think—something my critics seem to think is only a virtue to be ascribed to themselves.  Well, call me what you will, but I prefer to do my own thinking, thanks.

With all this said, I’ve taken some time today reading through Mr. Boyer’s Facebook Notes including his criticism of my good friend Dr. W. Cleon Skousen.  I’ve read his “What if Jesus Christ was a Free Capitalist” and his selected excerpts from Eric Samuelsen’s Sunstone blog, and finally I’ve taken him up on the invitation to re-read Fourth Nephi and Moroni 7.

So, where does this leave things?

Well, my actual motivation for writing this entry today is to announce to my friends and readers that I’ve decided to take Nick up on his challenge, starting with his question, “How does Jesus Christ give us an example of the virtue of selfishness?” I’m also going to address his position that, “the Book of Mormon and Atlas Shrugged are not at all on page with one another.”  I’ll probably hit on a few more of his specific arguments as we go along, but the above two points will be my main focus.

Now, since I’ve heard that folks might be having a hard time plowing through some of my longer blogs, I think it will best to take three or four separate writings to address this challenge.  I’m currently working on an anticipated outline and I’m planning to publish it in the comments section of this entry here in the next day or so.

I’m curious if Mr. Boyer will make a conversation out of all this.  I hope so, it could be fun. My experience, however, causes me to doubt if we’ll hear much back from him after I get through with my response.  Its much easier for critics to just move on to their next target than to see an argument through to a conclusion.  So, Nick, here’s my invitation back at you – when I publish my answer, I hope you’ll stay engaged for round two.

For those who are interested, stay tuned.  I hope to publish my answer over the course of this next week.  Who knows, you might just get a few advance selections from this book of mine that I’ve been promising to publish for the last few years.

In the end, whether Mr. Boyer responds or not, I hope that all of this might help you to examine your own thoughts and you own beliefs.  At the very least I hope to demonstrate that repackaged Marxism isn’t any better for the soul today that it was a hundred and fifty years ago.   Remember, when it all boils down to it, it is our ideas — more than our intentions — that determine the correctness and virtue of our course.

If you liked this post, try these...

• June 25, 2009 -- Rick Koerber answers, “Is Rep. Carl Wimmer My Friend?”
• October 27, 2008 -- God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher
• April 20, 2008 -- Dumb Dad of the Year Award
• August 4, 2008 -- Initiation into the Secret Brotherhood of Dads
• November 17, 2008 -- Updated: Some Things are Worth Thinking About

Do you think Gary Herbert likes swing dancing?

Since we first met I’ve thought Gary was a nice guy, but of course back then he wasn’t the Governor.  These days it’s hard to tell what you really know about politicians or their agendas.  Even more relevant in today’s climate of ‘tea parties’ and a promised revival of the Republican Revolution part II, it’s getting harder and harder to tell who really has principles, and which leaders just have good PR intuition.

“Swing?” Did I really start this out by asking if the Utah Governor likes swing dancing?  I know it seems random, but it’s not – really.  Don’t you remember the 1993 film Swing Kids?

“No one who likes swing can become a Nazi.”  – Arvid

Interesting test, I think, for not so obvious reasons.  In our day, and in our time, we have definitely reached a point in our own political history in the midst of a mammoth struggle to once again debunk and dethrone the growing popularity of socialism (albeit in a much more clever, 2010-era disguise) coming up with tests or mechanisms for determining a politicians true motives can sometimes seem as random as their choice of music.  But, my reference to the movie Swing Kids wasn’t just for fun.

While it wasn’t the greatest movie in the world, there is another more relevant and poignant exchange between two of the characters in the movie, both young adults struggling with the dramatic choices of freedom and individual worth versus the growing irresistibility of power (social and political) available to those who went along with joining Hitler’s Youth Corps.

“Arvid: I would rather belong to anyone… ANYONE, than belong to the Nazis like you do.
Thomas: That’s because you have everything backwards. Nazis go anywhere they want, do anything they want, everyone gets out of our way.
Arvid: Quiz time. Got your glasses on.
Thomas: What?
Arvid: It means you don’t know who your friends are.”

This is the real question for politically active citizens today.  Do we know who our friends are?  This brings me back to how I started this discussion in the first place.   You’ll never guess what I got from my friend Gary Herbert in the mail the other day.

I was pretty surprised to tell you the truth.  It was early in the morning hours and I had moseyed out to our mailbox, not really thinking about the mail at all, just going through a ritual.  I was dressed in my gym shorts and a t-shirt when I saw it.

I almost threw it out at first.  I wasn’t even going to open it, this blank white nondescript looking piece of mail that gave no indication of who had sent it.  I figured it was likely junk mail.

Then as I took a closer look, the fact that the envelope was addressed “TO THE PARENTS/GUARDIANS OF CLAUD KOERBER” made me think I better take a look inside.

So, standing curbside, in front of my house, just before the sun was yet visible, I set all the other mail aside and focused on this one item.  I opened up the envelope and the first thing I noticed was that it didn’t seem like junk mail at all.  As it turned out, it was actually a Hallmark® card.

“Huh?” I thought to myself, “That’s not what I expected.”

We did recently have a new addition to our family (in case some of you didn’t yet know.) He’s an amazing little guy that we actually named after me, Claud.  He’s lucky number seven for our clan.  Oh, and don’t worry, we did also give him a nice middle name too, so he has an option, other than being called Claud Jr. his whole life.

So anyway, the fact that it was a Hallmark® card was nice, and I was curious to see who might have sent. it.  I opened it up and looked to the bottom and sure enough, there was the signature of Gary and Jeanette Herbert.

For a few reasons that should be pretty obvious to those who have been following my story for the last few years, I wast certainly not expecting anything like this from the Governor. But, of course, as most of you reading this have already figured out, if this is all there was too it, I wouldn’t be writing about it here.  So what gives?

Well, after noticing the card was signed by Gary, I figured I better read it carefully.  I didn’t want to miss something.  For the full effect, let me just take you though it, like I experienced it.

“A darling little baby, to cuddle and adore,
To Spoil a little and love a lot – who could ask for more!”

Okay, so that’s nice, right?  Normal?  Yeah, I think so.

The card continues,

“Congratulations on the birth of your new baby!  As the proud parents of six children, we know how precious your new baby is to you and how important it is to keep your little one healthy and happy.”

So at this point I figure, “Oh, I get it, this is some kind of generic card sent by the Governor’s office to every family in Utah that has recently had a baby.”  That’s not so unusual, right?

I don’t suppose I would have done anything except throw out the card with the rest of the worthless junk mail after realizing it was essentially the equivalent of a meaningless form letter, except that when I read the last sentence of the card the hair on the back of my neck started to stand up.  Maybe it won’t strike you like it struck me, but take a look.

The last line reads, “Please give your baby a healthy start by beginning immunizations at two months of age.”

“What?” I thought to myself.  “Here’s this nice, cute, and vainly personalized Hallmark® card and out of the blue I’m being prodded about immunizations?”  I actually re-read the card again searching for some context that helped that last sentence make sense.  But, nope, there was no context.  Even worse, as I re-examined the envelope I confirmed that there wasn’t any context at all, not even a return address.

So, I tucked the rest of the mail up under my arm and with Gary’s Halmark® card in hand, I started back for the house.  The more I thought about it, the more I started to get really intellectually worked up.  Then I noticed that attached to the back of the card there was actually a blank immunization record form along with a notice from the Utah Department of Health regarding its Immunization Program.  Do Utah’s bureaucrats do anything out front and open or is being subtle and sneaky somehow required by some obscure statute that I haven’t yet come across?

Man, finding that immunization card really did trip my trigger.

It’s not that I’m super huge into the increasingly popular immunization controversy, I’m more of an immunization agnostic at present.  But, while I certainly have some research to do – I’m not naive enough to think that there aren’t seriously deep pocket political and money interests involved in the whose issue—from top to bottom.  But, regardless of all that, I couldn’t stop asking myself, “Why in the heck did the Governor and his wife have to send me this disguised attempt at promoting immunization?”

I’ve had a hard time putting my finger on it exactly, but something about the whole thing just seems odd and inappropriate.  One thing I did know for certain however, as I walked back into my house early that morning, I was not feeling the way you’d expect to feel after getting a congratulatory Hallmark® card from a prominent figure like Gary.

I hate that kind of emotional manipulation, whether it’s politics or not. Maybe citizens should start sending their letters to elected officials on Hallmark® cards too.  I can just imagine,

“A darling little baby, to cuddle and adore,
To Spoil a little and love a lot – who could ask for more!
So please don’t raise my taxes.”

As if the whole thing hadn’t already gotten me worked up, I read the first two sentences of the Utah Department of Health notice on the back of the immunization card.  Take a look.

So, my judgment – as a parent – doesn’t even factor into the equation?  Should Jewel and I even have a say in the matter?  I’m highly skeptical of the answers some politicians and other government bureaucrats would offer.  The reality is that in the crevices of many shallow minds, if I had chosen a different educational track, or gotten myself hired as a government employee, my brain would have been magically blessed and transformed, and for some unexplainable reason as a representative of the government I’d be able to tell all of you what is, or is not, in your best interest and also tell you what is best for your children–and I’d be able to do it with the force of government behind me.

Ug.  I really hate getting things from government bureaucracies, even if its a Hallmark® card.

Did you notice, also, that in the Health Department’s notice, instead of using the names of the actual drugs being advocated as part of their vaccination regimen, the government actually promotes the registered brand names of the corporations who are pushing the drugs?

As I was talking about this with one of my friends, he just couldn’t see what the big deal was about a) the card, b) the card being from the Governor, or c) the immunization material sent by the Utah Department of Health.  In response to his, “Rick, you seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill” remarks, I said something that I’ve been thinking about ever since.

“If people—generally speaking—want to live and want their children to live, and are pretty darn fearful of unknown health risks, why in the world does the government need to spend time, money and taxpayer resources on subtle/surreptitious advertising for commercial pharmaceutical companies?”

Ironically, I think several of Utah’s politicians have read Ezra Taft Bensen’s Proper Role of Government, and it has never occurred to them that selling pharmaceuticals is not part of the job.

My other major question is why has Gary Herbert gotten himself involved in this kind of thing?  I’m sure most people just chalk it up to “public service” as Utah’s governor, but is it really public service?

Like I said, it all reminds me of the movie Swing Kids.

In small ways and in some big ones, it’s a strange time to be witnessing the goings on of those who hold political office in America in 2010.  I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of nice guys and gals (“do-gooders”) out their holding elective office trying to do us all a great service.  But, as I learned when I opened the mail the other day, not everything is as it seems.  We should be more aware and more vigilant.

Quiz time. Got your glasses on.

Gary Herbert standing with my family and me in the entrance to our Alpine, UT home at a political gathering few years back.

If you liked this post, try these...

• December 6, 2009 -- Is Rick Koerber really the “Utahn of the Year?”
• June 29, 2009 -- Brain-Off, Mouth Open: Tom Grover Misses the Point
• April 8, 2009 -- Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.
• October 27, 2008 -- God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher
• April 10, 2008 -- Carl Wimmer & Friends: Superheroes?

Rick Koerber runs the Free Capitalist Project, which includes a radio show and web site.

Alpine businessman Claud ‘Rick’ Koerber carries on…

He denies allegations and has relaunched economic project

By Emiley Morgan
Deseret News
January 27 2010 12:00 a.m. MST

Highland – It’s clear, just from the words he uses, that the line has been drawn in the sand.

This is a battle. A fight. This is the government versus the businessman. And while Claud “Rick” Koerber, 36, thinks it’s quite a compelling story, he said it would be more interesting if this conflict weren’t also his life.

Though he has been accused by the government of running a Ponzi scheme that bilked investors of $100 million, Koerber is undeterred. He’s not repentant because he says he’s not guilty. He believes in the money he made and the company he built. He intends to fight the battle and emerge victorious.

“The rules of the justice system are that you can fight,” he said. “It’s the fundamental thing that makes a free society more attractive. Just because the government accuses you, it doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m proud of my business. I’m proud of what we did. I think that what we did was amazing.”

>>> Read the Full Article at Deseret News

If you liked this post, try these...

• December 6, 2009 -- Is Rick Koerber really the “Utahn of the Year?”
• November 3, 2009 -- Koerbers Divorce
• June 29, 2009 -- Brain-Off, Mouth Open: Tom Grover Misses the Point
• June 18, 2009 -- The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
• April 8, 2009 -- Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.

So, first I win the Salt Lake Tribune’s online poll for Utahan of the Year, and now “the Brady Bunch?”

It’s actually a quite funny story. To begin with though, I have to confess that I don’t remember watching even a single episode of the Brady Bunch when I was a kid. But, a couple of weeks ago when Jewel and I took our family in for our end of the year, Yes, family, we really do exist, and we can even all smile at the same time, photo—I was pretty surprised when the photographer, after learning a little about us quipped, “Well isn’t this just the Brady Bunch.”

What? Okay, seriously? I’ve been called a lot of things, but…..the Brady Bunch? Those have got to be fightin’ words. Right?

Maybe a little remark like that wouldn’t have set your mind into orbit like it did mine.  But, there I was, caught thinking to myself, “What in the heck is this lady smoking?”

Do you know much about the show? Do you like it? Do you know why it was created in the first place?  Do you know what it was supposed to symbolize?  Do you think me and my family are like the Brady Bunch?  Sheesh!

For me, this lady calling me and my family the Brady Bunch was one of those dumb, insignificant, why I am obsessing about this but, I’m not going to let this go until I figure it out moments. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but dang it, I hate it when I can’t figure something out. Especially something the so surprisingly got me all riled up.

So, now I’ve done some research. Yep. Really. I even know, now, why Sherwood Schwartz came up with the idea for the Brady Bunch in the first place. But I’ll get to that in a minute.

Anyway.  I’m here to report that I’ve finally identified the problem of that day—a problem that primarily existed in my brain alone. You see, I’ve always understood pop culture allusions to the Brady Bunch to be pointing to the white bread, glib, two dimensional notions of the ideal family kind of like the June, Ward, Wally, and the Beaver sort of references. So, when the photographer made her comment, it all seemed VERY far away from anything close to what my family could possible represent—TO ANYONE.

Steve Martin, the boy “born a poor black child” in The Jerk? Maybe.  But, my family is not WHITE BREAD! ?

Honestly, I don’t know why I paid any attention to the remark at all. But after taking some time to think it through, research the Brady Bunch, and write this way too long blog post, I think I might have had one of those mumbo jumbo personal breakthrough thingies.

Maybe.

Well, the thing is, I’ve come to realize, perhaps more than before, that I’m a pretty defensive sucker when it comes to the views others have about people I love. And, in a mildly embarrassing Freud-like acknowledgment, I have to admit that it turns out this all goes back to my childhood and my mother.

Side Comment: The above conversation is supposed to be funny—subtly so, but funny nevertheless. If you’re not getting that, it’s either my bad writing or your bad thinking (or both). But I’m going to keep writing, working under the assumption that you are laughing, even if mildly, and if not, that its just your bad thinking. Okay? ?

Okay, now, back to my defensiveness, my childhood, and my mother.

So, the truth of the matter is, as I was mentioning, that I’m pretty dang defensive of my family in general. And, there is NOTHING white bread, glib, or two-dimensional about any of it. Did I say that already?  For some strange reason, suggesting anything LIKE that, really stirs up the “Oh yeah, well how about I knock your freakin’ teeth out” part of me that no one is really supposed to know about.

There’s nothing than can provoke defensiveness more quickly than challenging someone’s notion of who they are and where the come from. In our heads, we all carry around these ever evolving but seldom conscious “stories” or narratives about who we are, where we come from, and what it all means about us. This story, in my head, is exactly where the problem occurred, not long ago at Kiddie Kandids’ when the term Brady Bunch actually short-circuited my ever so personal, synaptic reality.

The story, in my head (at least the abbreviated version), goes something like this:

Me – a poor white kid, raised by a struggling but dedicated cocktail waitress/bartender/single mother (did I mention I was an only child?), from the ghetto neighborhood of North Casper—that’s in Wyoming—who grew up listening to R&B, Hip Hop and John Fogerty (huh?), now a mid-thirties, divorced and remarried Mormon convert, Free Capitalist, twice broke-once rich, entrepreneur, adoptive father of three, now under federal indictment (subtle warning to those who like to say mean things publicly about government bureaucrats).

My wife – a divorced but faithful Mormon (and mother of three awesome kids), who grew up one of fifty grandchildren to the gifted scriptural and constitutional scholar, the late Dr. W. Cleon Skousen. The daughter of two political and educational minded reformists, Jewel decided for herself after a short stint as a Sophomore in public schools, to forgo government programming, and to graduate from the Utah Home School Association and travel the country with her family helping educate American’s about our Founding Fathers. Since that time she has become an experienced businesswoman, successful teacher, passionate lecturer, and for the time being, a very busy mom.

Our kids – A fifteen year-old up-and-coming fashion designer, a thirteen year-old developing stage actress, a ten year old budding engineer, a five year old (convinced she’s 18) deciding between becoming a lawyer or a ballerina, a four year old convinced he can play football, basketball, baseball and help his dad fight the “bad guys” all at the same time, and a two year old who is, so far, content just enjoying life. And, we have one on the way. So I suppose we’ll soon have to change from the Brady Bunch to Yours, Mine and Ours?

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it. I do admit however, that would be a pretty dang long theme song.

But, with all this explained, now I think it makes more sense why I might be so caught off guard by a passing Brady Bunch reference. In homage to the rest of my childhood television/pop-cultural aptitude, for someone to ascribe a term like the Brady Bunch to me, it might best be responded to with a simple, “What’chu talkin’ ‘bout Willis?”

Okay, maybe I didn’t actually say that – but I could have.

Actually the point of my whole blathering on is that my defensiveness (as is usually the lesson for most of us, most of the time) was misguided. Ironically, it was only in obsessing about this whole thing that I actually learned the lyrics to the Brady Bunch theme song (thanks to my very patient and enduring young children) and at the same time I discovered that Sherwood Schwartz intentionally conceived the idea for the show after reading a newspaper article in the mid-1960s that said “40% of marriages in the US had a child or children from a previous marriage.” The Census Bureau’s most recent statistics show that today, in 2010, stepfamilies are the predominant family form in America with 70% being “blended” families from previous marriages. Other studies show that as many as in one in three Americans is now a stepparent, a stepchild, a stepsibling, or some other member of a stepfamily.

Huh. Well, assumptions are tricky things. As it turns out the whole purpose of the Brady Bunch was to inject some practical, difficult and sometimes even sensitive real life narrative into the typical white bread, glib, two-dimensional presentations of family life so common at the time and I had gotten the message actually backwards.

Funny thing is, I don’t think the photographer gal was really thinking about ANY of this. I think she just saw the whole “three from him” and “three from her” combination of our large family and went “Oh, its kind of like the Brady Bunch.”

So, in reflection does the label fit? The Brady Bunch. Hmmm.

No matter what label might be ascribed; nothing can overshadow how much my family means to me. This includes all my kids, stepkids, and even extended non-traditional members. My family, even with all our scratches and dents, is something for which I am exceptionally thankful and proud.

And, for the record, I do think we could actually start our own TV show. We could call it Grand Agape or maybe Big Ardour – or something. I’m just sayin’.

The Brady Bunch? The Koerber Family

From Age 2 to Age 15 (Yes, Mekenna, you're almost 16 already.)

If you liked this post, try these...

• April 20, 2008 -- Dumb Dad of the Year Award
• April 12, 2008 -- Are You a Capitalist, by 1886 Standards?
• January 4, 2008 -- Overcoming the “Invincible”
• February 2, 2009 -- Some Days Music Says it Best
• January 27, 2010 -- Government vs the Businessman

Yeah, I was chuckling when I saw the newspaper’s article, but then I got to thinking…

I’d like to ask for your vote. It will only take 60 seconds and could accomplish something very interesting. Really. I’m not kidding.

Let me explain. As most of you know, 2009 has not been exactly the kind of year I would have scripted for me and my family. But, as it turns out, the Salt Lake Tribune want’s to know if I should be the “Utahn of the Year.”  I’m not kidding.

As no one who has followed me for any length of time could have missed, I have not only been an outspoken critic of over-sized government, but a few years ago I got real specific about criticizing a few very malicious bureaucrats who have essentially dedicated their lives to destroying my businesses and my reputation. Of course, I’m not one to shy away from the battle, and I will continue to fight—to not only restore my businesses and our creditors, but also, to see that the facts are given their fair attention in a legitimate forum (the courtroom) so that my public reputation will be restored to good standing with reasonable folks.

So, back to the Tribune’s recent article. Yesterday, the paper published a list of 13 “newsmakers” and asked their readers to vote on who should be considered the “Utahn of the Year.” Evidently the paper is going to pick their own winner, and frankly my vote (if I had to pick from the list they give) would be Elizabeth Smart. But, they are asking online readers to vote from the list so they can see how their “choice compares.” It’s all a little hokey for me.

But, since my name was mentioned I browsed through the list. I couldn’t really make heads or tails of it. Evidently, these are people whose names appeared most frequently in the Tribune’s headlines this year. But, it seems to me to be oddly missing other names that more easily come to mind. Anyway, for some dumb reason I’m number 8 on the Tribune’s list of candidates. Of course I haven’t done a darn thing this year to be legitimately considered something like the Utahn of the Year. But, then I got to thinking…

Not only have I done absolutely nothing to be considered “Utahn of the Year,” I’ve also done nothing that could rationally explain why I’m now facing charges with a potential penalty of over 200 years in federal prison.

As most of you know, the Salt Lake Tribune, along with the rest of the government media who seem content reporting government press releases as actual news, has done little-to-no real journalism to tell the real story about me, my companies, and these charges. So, I don’t know if it was my sense of humor, my orneriness or my sense of wanting to create a conundrum for those dumb bureaucrats—but…

Here’s what I’m thinking.

Also on the Tribune’s list are Jon Huntsman Jr. (what he’s done to be the Utahn of the Year I also haven’t a clue) and my favorite, US Attorney Brett Tolman who so naively has towed Francine Giani’s line in my case. Wouldn’t it be funny if I beat these guys? Even more so, wouldn’t it be funny if the Free Capitalist (insert Francine Giani scowl here – she didn’t even make the list ) were to be voted Utahn of the Year?

On a more serious note, might it not encourage some real journalism on me and my case, if someone for whom every article in the Tribune has been negative, somehow wins the most support online for Utahn of the Year? Well, that’s my idea. It’s not rocket science or anything, but we are playing with some rather dull folks in the media and in the government.

So, if you care to take a minute and help me out with this little idea of mine, you can vote here – it doesn’t take an email address or anything. I takes less than 30 seconds.

As of right now, I’m already ahead of Carlos Boozer of the Utah Jazz, current Utah Governor Gary Herbert, and victory of victories, Brett Tolman (why is it no one can get his name right?)

Of course, I don’t want or expect to win an award or anything, but maybe Francine might come up with a way to suggest that this idea too is part of some ponzi-scheme the government hasn’t yet fully uncovered. It would serve her right.

Take care, keep your brain engaged, keep your friends and family alert, and most importantly–if you’re already doing these things—keep up the fight!

Happy Holidays,

—Rick

If you liked this post, try these...

• June 29, 2009 -- Brain-Off, Mouth Open: Tom Grover Misses the Point
• November 3, 2009 -- Koerbers Divorce
• February 14, 2008 -- Francine’s Domain – Scandal Brewing in Utah Government
• July 19, 2010 -- Guess what I got from the Governor.
• January 27, 2010 -- Government vs the Businessman

Official Statement
From Mr. Koerber’s Legal Defense Team

Re: News of the superseding indictment reported in the local media on the evening of Tuesday, November 10, 2009

“Nothing has been filed.  We learned of the superseding indictment from the government’s press release.  Apparently the government’s practice here is to issue a press release to the public before giving the defense an opportunity to review the underlying document.  So, we are unable to comment on the specifics.

“Notably, Mr. Koerber’s lead attorney was on the phone with the prosecutors today discussing matters in the case, and they did not say anything about it.  Nevertheless, an increase in the number of counts does not change the flawed and disjointed foundation of the government’s case. Judging from its press release, the government seems to be trying to stretch the same allegations over more and more charges.  These are the same allegations, mind you, that the government first asserted in the course of an investigation which an independent government Auditor has described as “inappropriate” and “inconsistent” with “established policies and procedures.”  The head of the investigation now is the same individual who first referred this matter to the Attorney General of the State of Utah—the Attorney General, of course, declined to prosecute the case for a lack of any real evidence of wrongdoing.  Adding more words and allegations should not change the fundamental conclusion.”

—End

If you liked this post, try these...

• May 27, 2009 -- Indicted.

Just received a call from Tom Harvey at the Salt Lake Tribune.  Obviously the unquenchable desire to spread gossip about me is still growing at the Tribune.  So that my friends, family, and associates can hear it from me first — rather than the most certain false perspectives and foundationless speculation likely to accompany the coming Tribune reports — I will confirm that it is a fact that Michelle asked me for a divorce a few weeks ago.

Without any contention we have worked together to resolve our mutual concerns at every step and complete the divorce processes, paperwork, and legal filings required of us in this situation.  I continue to love and support Michelle for herself and as the mother of our children.  I think our relationship will remain long term and very close.

It is unfortunate but not all that surprising that reporters would consider my family life part of their fodder for promoting gossip.    Given the weak journalistic standards of some in the press, I am not confident that this matter will be accurate so I caution the honest reader that any speculation or public report regarding any of our future plans is premature and uncivil.

I’ve always been very open with those close to me and with the public.  I will continue to be so when appropriate announcements are forthcoming.  In the mean time I hope that my friends, family and associates can all remember, principles govern and time is on the side of truth.

P.S.  A friend just recently commented on how disgusted he was to see the way my “story” is playing out in the media given that he is in a first hand position to see the truths so frequently distorted and contradicted by shoddy reporting.  I responded by telling him, quite candidly, “I knew what I was signing up for when I stepped into the ring.  When you are in the middle of a boxing match you don’t complain that you just got hit in the nose.”

To those with loving and friendly concerns like my friend’s, remember people often judge too hastily and the media seldom gets to the bottom of the truth in the short term.  But, have faith.  Over time, the truth will be laid bare and those who are interested in the truth will be able to see, very clearly, all the answers to their legitimate questions.    We have a long fight ahead of us and are extremely grateful for loyal and faithful friends.

–Rick

If you liked this post, try these...

• December 6, 2009 -- Is Rick Koerber really the “Utahn of the Year?”
• January 27, 2010 -- Government vs the Businessman
• June 29, 2009 -- Brain-Off, Mouth Open: Tom Grover Misses the Point
• June 18, 2009 -- The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
• May 31, 2009 -- Gratitude | Standing with Friends.

Whenever a self-proclaimed libertarian takes the side of government over its citizens, you can bet that something sinister is underway.   I can’t think of a more appropriate way to describe Tom Grover’s recent attempt of political opinionating in his piece, “Rep. Carl Wimmer scandal isn’t about Rick Koerber, it’s about the integrity of our justice system.”  Mr. Grover essentially argues three points, 1) that Wimmer has betrayed the interests of justice and should resign for “intimidating” regulators, 2) that lawmakers should learn a lesson and steer clear of similar conduct, and 3) that Utahans should let regulators like Francine Giani alone while they do ‘their job.’

The short sighted and pious platitudes of Mr. Grover, a self-proclaimed Utah libertarian, demonstrate an alarming trend, exerting a surprisingly Herculean pressure, in modern politics.  Namely, in our current era, posturing and hasty generalizations serve as a regular substitutes for critical thinking and rational conclusions.  In this case, Mr. Grover’s brain-off, mouth open response to the so-called “Carl Wimmer Scandal” should be seen by citizens for precisely what it is—short sighted, and dangerously naïve.

The critical matter at issue in this story, and similarly at issue in our contemporary political culture, is one that ‘posture first, think later’ politicos like Tom keep missing.  The greatest threat to the individual liberty of free citizens does NOT come from private citizens (regardless of what they stand accused), it comes directly from government.

All contemporary issues notwithstanding the greatest danger facing free citizens today is unaccountable, overzealous, and unchecked government.  Very often, this threat takes the form of little known bureaucracy and even less known bureaucrats who freely trample the rights of citizens with little to no scrutiny or accountability.

Something that seems to escape the sporadic mental awareness of pundits like Grover, when contemplating political realities, is that business owners and entrepreneurs are citizens too.  Of course, someone who self-identifies as a libertarian knows this in theory, but in practice, folks like Tom seem to have trouble venturing beyond their own presumptions to see just exactly what their ideas mean when translated into the real world.

Take one simple example, where Mr. Grover remarks,

“If Mr. Koerber is a victim, he can prove it in court.  Evidence obtained against him illegally or coercively will be excluded.  Other abuses can be addressed in civil court.  Incidentally, Mr. Koerber was indicted after U.S. Attorney for Utah Bret Tolman conducted his own separate investigation.”

Here, Mr. Grover clearly and openly suggests that the right thing is for government to be allowed to do whatever it wants, and if it oversteps or does wrong, then those who are “victimized” can seek to have their day in civil court.  How dumb does this idea suggest citizens are?  Since when was this the position of a libertarian?  How is this an idea rooted in justice, a concept Mr. Grover seems to approve of, at least rhetorically?  You see, to the brain-off crowd, it might not be clear, but to the rest of us—we can see exactly what the consequences are of these not-so-libertarian ideas advanced by Mr. Grover. To illustrate, look at one simple quote from Mr. Grover’s story.  It contains only four sentences, but they speak volumes about what’s really being advocated.

#1 – “If Mr. Koerber is a victim, he can prove it in court.”

While the distinction will serve little purpose to most, it is worth noting that I’ve never claimed to be a “victim.”  What I have claimed is that the government has been engaged in wrongdoing, in illegal behavior, and in abusive violations of its citizens’ individual, civil rights.

>>>See “Federal Indictment Doesn’t Discourage Rick Koerber from Lashing Out at State Investigators,” by Fields Moseley (KUTV, Utah Channel 2 News)
>>>See “Rick Koerber Responds to Indictment,” by Franklin Squires (Official Company Website)

Besides the impact on my family and me, the actions of bureaucrat Giani and her colleagues have cost hundreds of Utahans their honest, well paying jobs.  In addition, the State action she oversaw has played a direct role in Utah citizens losing hundreds of millions of dollars.  So, if you’re going to choose to see ‘victims’ in this context, don’t forget to take a full measure.

Now, getting to the point more directly, let us think through what Mr. Grover is also suggesting.  Anyone aggrieved by suspected corruption, abuse, or malfeasance on the part of government officials, employees, or agents should just calm down, wait until the damage is fully done and then seek their day in court.  This would be like a citizen never being able to call the police when a crime is in progress, instead having as the only remedy, waiting until the commission of a crime is all over and then sue the criminals in civil court.

Of course, the implication of Mr. Grover’s idea is absurd when applied in such a common context (such as police officers and typical criminals), but when Mr. Grover applies it to government regulators and small business owners, the same idea passes for legitimate opinion.  Never mind that such a day in court is not permitted, in most circumstances, without first having to obtain permission from the government–to bring suit against a government agency.  Never mind that paying for such a day in court is, at a minimum, a several hundred thousand dollar venture (a sum much more difficult to muster after the government has had its way to begin with.)  Oh, and never mind that some damage and some wrongs committed cannot be undone by winning a victory in civil court (even if that victory includes a large money settlement).

It’s curious to me, how someone like Mr. Grover, evidently now attending law school (just what the world needs is another brain-off lawyer) can claim to love liberty while his own ideas self-evidently loathe the idea.  Would Mr. Grover, I wonder, hold the same ideas if it was him or his family that was being deprived of liberty without trial, being slandered and defamed by government employees working outside the law; or, if it was his livelihood being destroyed by someone like Francine Giani who actually has no legal qualifications whatsoever and yet holds virtually unchecked bureaucratic autonomy to shut down any small business or entrepreneur she whimsically sees fit?

Now, lest the reader think that by disagreeing with my characterization of Ms. Giani and her powers, you’ve escaped the logic of my conclusion – remember – Mr. Grover’s idea is that, no matter what has happened, no matter what wrong has been or might have been perpetuated by the government, the real remedy is to seek redress in civil court, after the fact.  Government officials, I guess in Mr. Grover’s views, are immune from criminal prosecution for wrongdoing–so long as the accusations originate from private citizens.

Note: This is of course, unless a free citizen, with no complaints or charges filed and no formal accusations made of any kind, and under no arrest, has contacted the government official in question and requested legitimate assistance in getting fair treatment from a government agency.  In this case, and this case only, it appears, Mr. Grover supports added scrutiny and accountability

Unfortunately, many of his readers will not easily see the obvious evil in his kind of juvenile pontificating.  Suggesting that a citizen’s only right consists of enduring abuse by the government only later hoping for a victory in civil court, is a political philosophy shared by the likes of Saddam, Chavez, Stalin, Mussolini, and in the Founder’s day, King George.

“#2 – Evidence obtained against him illegally or coercively will be excluded.”

It’s obvious that Mr. Gover hasn’t thought this one through.  First, you have to ask, who is it that will exclude such evidence?  You see, Ms. Giani has large, virtually unchecked latitude in bringing sanctions, administrative orders, etc., without any outside interference.

Second, the independent legislative audit (which I understand is probably too much reading, being over forty printed pages, to be expected of someone like Mr. Grover and his political likenesses who also pass sweeping legislation without so much as reading it) concluded that Ms. Giani’s department used illegally obtained evidence to exert extrajudicial pressure and coercion on small business owners.

Third, Mr. Grover seems to either forget or be unaware that grand juriess are enabled in almost all circumstances to hear and consider almost any such evidence in order to obtain an indictment.

Finally, the point being missed here is that the sum of my complaints against the government—and to the point of Mr. Grover’s essay, of Mr. Wimmer’s complaints against Giani—has not been that they have obtained evidence illegally (though they have) or that they’ve attempted coercion (though they have) but, the most substantive complaint has always been that the government is using extra-legal, and extra-judicial means of exacting punishment without any due process of the law and without regard to the rights of the citizens involved.

“#3 – Other abuses can be addressed in civil court.”

This is always the argument of the brain-off crowd when seeking to excuse their own cowardice.  But, just how is it that a reputation can be regained in court?  How is it that a company destroyed unjustly by government bureaucrats, (that before hand had an excellent reputation, had paid all its bills, and had earned substantial assets in excess of liabilities) can be restored through civil court?

How is it that personal relationships destroyed by the lies and misinformation of the government and its agents can magically be remedied or repaired in civil court, after the fact?  You see, the underlying idea behind Mr. Grover’s argument is that all wrongs boil down to money; money, of course, that can be repaid to any supposed victim if a civil jury decides in your favor.  At the same time, people making this kind of argument are the first to point out, in their stiff-necked and boastful dignity, that money is not what life is all about.  If only Mr. Grover and his equivalents were as interested in measuring the real costs of tyranny in the currency of personal liberty.

“#4 – Incidentally, Mr. Koerber was indicted after U.S. Attorney for Utah Bret Tolman conducted his own separate investigation.”

I started out by warning that Mr. Grover’s ideas are dangerous and naïve.  I did so in the interest of those who might be tempted to believe him.  Here is a perfect example of how such danger and naivety plays out.  It is absolutely clear that Mr. Tolman’s office did not conduct it’s “own separate investigation.”  While language to that effect has been thrown around, the clear evidence is quite the opposite.  At the press conference, held by Mr. Tolman (a federal official), he invited Ms. Giani (a state official) to speak to the media about her involvement.  During her remarks she claimed ultimate credit and victory for the federal indictment and even thanked the Utah governor for sticking behind her.   Mr. Tolman remarked that the investigation had started by a referral from Ms. Giani and would continue to be carried out in partnership with the Utah Department of Commerce.  Yes, it can be argued, that the federal government employed an IRS agent and an FBI agent to interview and gather evidence.  However, the theory behind the charges in the indictment, and the supporting evidence so far detailed by the government, shows unmistakably that it was the State of Utah’s investigation that drove this case to federal indictment.

One last thing about this whole, “incidentally” remark by Mr. Grover.  Does it matter?  Does it even matter if the person who is the subject of such an investigation is guilty (which I am not, by the way)?  Meaning, have we reached a point in society where misdeeds, abuse, and even criminal conduct by government officials and agents is tolerable and/or excused so long as some other agency “ratifies” the action by bringing charges?  Or, to put the matter even more simply, Mr. Grover is suggesting that from this point forward in America, all the misdeeds and corruption on the part of government should be excused so long as they are going after a legitimate target.

Think about this.  This kind of “ends justify the means” argument is the same argument advanced by every tyrant in history.  Hitler, Stalin, and today’s Kim Jong-il, Castro, and Chavez all justify the ugliness and brutality of their methods by holding up their supposedly righteous goals.  Remember, they all think they are “good guys” using government to “promote the greater good.”  While it may not be obvious to Mr. Grover and those of his political ilk, this is the same behavior for which he is offering an outright apology/defense.

I can’t help but wonder if and when other liberty loving citizens will get sick enough about this kind of wickedness being disguised as reasoned political opinion that folks like Mr. Grover might actually have to start answering for such embarrassing and disgustingly vulgar expressions.  Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone like Mr. Grover was actually expected to defend the implications of his political ideas?

Now, let’s bring this whole thing to the central point.  You see, no one has to defend me or my supposed business dealings, in order to defend the role played by Carl Wimmer in this whole affair.  Rep. Wimmer did not seek to have Ms. Giani fired because she was investigating me – this is a red herring – thrown out by the lazy and insincere.  Carl’s insistence that she be fired was based upon her behavior, her disregard for the law, her ineffective leadership (remember her appointee Wayne Klein resigned to soften the potential blow to Ms. Giani and her department when the results of the audit were released) and her abusive tactics.

It should be noted that it was not my case alone that brought Carl to this position and it was not my case alone that led to the audit.

For my case, it now looks like the allegations will be settled in a courtroom.  However, honest and concerned citizens should be asking why Ms. Giani’s behavior continually gets a pass by lawmakers, by the Governor, and even by the media.  Why hasn’t a single source in the established media started asking questions of Ms. Giani?   Remember, it was not me, my case, or Carl Wimmer who documented the grievous miscarriages of justice being carried out by Ms. Giani’s department.  Completely independent of my case, it was audit manager Tim Osterstock, Audit Supervisor Susan Verhoef and the leadership of the legislature that uncovered this disturbing pattern.  Everything I’ve released to the public (including audio tapes clearly documenting criminal and felonious behavior by Ms. Giani’s staff) has been in addition to the audit’s published findings.  Yet, the government has not sought to hold Ms. Giani and her minions accountable to any substantial degree.  No criminal investigation or civil investigation have been launched and the media continues to ignore this reality.  What is the purpose of conducting such audits of government agencies if the findings are just getting swept under the rug?

Ms. Giani, thanks to Mr. Grover and other lazy-minded pontificators and pseudo journalists, continues to hide her abuse and incompetence by stoking the flames of my case while playing the victim herself of Wimmer, and Shurtleff and who knows who else.

I find it mildly hilarious that when it was revealed in the media this past week that one of her own employees retaliated against Mr .Wimmer, a duly elected lawmaker, for asking around about allegations of the Department’s alleged abuse (her employee–a paid bureaucrat—sent an email to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff lying about Wimmer’s motives and the nature of his relationship with me) that nothing more is said about it, but Wimmer is still painted as the bad guy, doing his friend a favor.  Since when were elected Representatives made off limits when a private citizen elect to exercise their constitutional right to petition their government for redress?

I’ll admit Francine makes a better poster child for victimhood than I do.  Her entire demeanor and public posture is that of a person being unfairly criticized and she is just out for vindication.  Never mind that several lawmakers (though not many courageous enough to speak out now in this climate) have done the same thing as Wimmer.  Never mind that she has been directly implicated in the wrongdoing discovered by the performance audit.  Never mind that her employees (even ones she has publicly defended) can easily be demonstrated to have been engaged in malicious behavior.  She’s building nothing, and she’s standing for no principle–but how dare an elected Representative ask the Governors to hold one of his appointees accountable.

Ironically, those in government who fancy themselves defenders of freedom haven’t shown themselves brave enough to actually hold her to the same standard as the rest of  Utah’s private citizens.  Have we forgotten that government employees are first and foremost citizens like the rest of us?  This whole situation reminds me of the Utah judge not long ago who was recorded, saying in her courtroom to a citizen addressing the court, “you and I are not equal, I am a judge.”

When Mr. Grover suggests that Rep. Wimmer betrayed the interests of justice and should resign for intimidating regulators, he ignores the undisputed fact that the now public legislative audit is sufficient grounds for anyone, including an individual legislator, to make such demands–regardless of my case.

In addition, to suggest that lawmakers should learn a lesson and steer clear of conduct similar to Wimmer’s is to suggest that executive branch employees and bureaucrats should not have to fear the check and balance oversight rightly provided by the legislature.  Never mind that the legislature has statutory authority to do just that.  I wonder, if left to Mr. Grover, who should be in charge of holding folks like Ms. Giani accountable.  Oh, yea, the courts–civilly, after the fact.  How just.

Think this one through.  The bureaucrats in this present case work for the executive branch of Utah government.  Their boss is ultimately, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.  He has demonstrated, directly and indirectly no interest and/or ability to oversee the abuses documented in the audit.  He’s actually never publicly expressed an opinion on the audit, its findings, or the consequences of such abusive behavior being carried by his branch of government, under his watch.  Does no one in the Utah media even have a curiosity about this major blunder?

What Mr. Grover is suggesting is that the legislature, even in the actions of its individual members, has no place putting pressure (even as a check against abuse) on the executive branch of government.  He tries to make the argument that Rep. Wimmer was simply trying to protect “one of his cronies” but the argument is laughable to anyone interested in the facts.  Consider the following.

1) Carl never tried to interfere with the investigation itself.

2) In addition to the performance audit, several other legislators were interested in the very same outcome, and that had nothing to do with me or the investigation of my companies.

3) The pressure he exerted by simply asking questions initially brought a Giani subordinate, the now resigned Director Wayne Klein, to admit that he was choosing his course of action against me—not based upon the facts or the law—but in his own words, because “[I had] legislators out there trying to cut [their] powers.”   Heaven forbid a legislator seeking to limit the power of a bureaucrat.  For this alone Wimmer should be hung, I’m sure.

3) Perhaps most importantly, after several years, Ms. Giani was unsuccessful in bringing any action against me civilly or criminally.  Don’t forget, her chief investigator in my case and the head of enforcement for the investigation, just one month prior to Ms. Giani turning the case over to the Feds, suggested to me, to her and to the AGs office that there “was no evidence” sufficient to bring charges of any wrong doing against me.  Any interested party can hear one of his several statements, in his own voice, concluding as much.

Has there been any news coverage of this?  If there was evidence that I should have been charged by the State of Utah, why did Ms. Giani neglect to produce the evidence when asked by the Utah Attorney General’s office in November / December of 2007?

In his piece, Mr. Grover writes,

“This is about more than Rep. Wimmer and Rick Koerber.  It’s about the integrity of our justice system. Each of us counts on blind justice to protect us. What kind of state do you want to live in? One where accusations of fraud are adjudicated on the merits in court?”

Agreed, Mr. Grover, it is about more than Carl Wimmer or Rick Koerber.  Agreed, it is about the integrity of our justice system.  Agreed, that Utahans should be asking themselves what kind of state they want to live in.  Agreed, that accusations of fraud should be adjudicated on the merits in court.  Have you considered reading the audit results of the Utah Division of Securities?  What would the audit results show, heaven forbid, if the legislature undertook an audit of all divisions in the Department of Commerce?

After five years, why didn’t the state of Utah bring any single action against me in any court?  Because of Wimmer and the Attorney General?  The facts are not on the side of those who glibly make this suggestion.  Ask Ms. Giani why she didn’t bring any evidence to the Utah Attorney General’s office suggesting wrongdoing.  Why didn’t she bring administrative actions (she could do that by statute without involving the Attorney General’s office)?  Why didn’t she ask a county or district prosecutor to bring such charges?  She’s done that in other cases.  Shouldn’t the questions, at least, be asked?

Even if there were reasons to bring charges against me, and none were brought, how is this a greater threat to the “integrity of the Justice System” than lying officials, or bureaucrats over-stepping the law and committing criminal violations thereof in pursuit of their case?

There used to be a time in America (between approximately 1776 and about 1930) that the basic philosophy of our justice system was “its better to let a potentially guilty man go free than to convict innocent men by overzealous government.”  Instead, today, the philosophy being advocated by Mr. Grover is that somehow I am a greater threat to justice than rogue government.  This is beyond reason.  It is insanity.

To argue that Utahans should let regulators like Francine Giani alone while they do ‘their job’ is to suggest that citizens should not have elected representatives at all (at least not Representatives who can take their interests into account in all matter of government.)

If Carl Wimmer was wrong to “represent” the interests of fairness and justice “for all citizens” in Utah and it is indeed the right thing to let government (Francine Giani or anyone else) escape accountability for their actions except after the fact – and perhaps then only in civil court – America has died.

Long after my case is over, come what may, Mr. Libertarian, we will still be dealing with a Department of Commerce that has only become emboldened since having their conduct publicly exposed, with little or no consequence, including:  1-Misleading the public, 2-Misstating the law to citizens, 3-Arbitrary enforcement of the law, 4-Conflicts of interest, 5-Document fraud, 6-Contempt or lack of respect for court rulings pertaining to innocent parties, 7-Coercive settlement tactics,  8-Knowingly making false statements during official proceedings, 9-Failure to remain impartial, and 10-Ongoing problems after the resignation of former Director Wayne Klein.”

You point the finger at people like Representative Wimmer, but the truth of the matter Tom, is that you are the one posturing for government—not its citizens. While not everyone sees it, those who are awake and thinking, do in fact see the consequence of your ideas, and they are disgusting, repugnant, and indicative of something far more sinister than the object of your story.  The intellectual laziness, quickness to judge, and slowness to see past the whim-of-the-day media spin evidenced by your piece is something much more to be feared than a legislator asking for a bureaucrats head.

If you liked this post, try these...

• February 14, 2008 -- Francine’s Domain – Scandal Brewing in Utah Government
• December 6, 2009 -- Is Rick Koerber really the “Utahn of the Year?”
• June 25, 2009 -- Rick Koerber answers, “Is Rep. Carl Wimmer My Friend?”
• April 10, 2008 -- Carl Wimmer & Friends: Superheroes?
• July 19, 2010 -- Guess what I got from the Governor.

“I originally approached Representative Wimmer and discussed my concerns of abusive and illegal tactics used by Francine Giani’s Department because I believed that he understood the proper role of government  and also agreed that every person investigated by the government deserves to be treated with fairness.  I also hoped that as a former law enforcement official Carl could see that, regardless of the underlying case, severe government abuses against its citizens during official investigations cannot be tolerated in a free society.  The 2008 legislative audit results of the Utah Division of Securities vindicated our common concern, and demonstrates that my request for assistance was accurate and well founded.  Why he is now apparently seeking to distance himself from me is a question only he can answer.  Representative Wimmer has not been involved, to any degree, in the businesses mentioned in the federal indictment against me.

“Did I consider Representative Wimmer a friend at the time I first approached him? Yes.  Do I now consider him a friend? Yes.  Am I surprised and disappointed at the way he has responded to questions about our relationship?  Yes.

“However, what I am even more concerned with, is how little scrutiny has been given to Francine Giani and her department since the legislative audit of the Utah Division of Securities publicly revealed that she and her department regularly engage in a disturbing pattern of conduct including:  1-Misleading the public, 2-Misstating the law to citizens, 3-Arbitrary enforcement of the law, 4-Conflicts of interest, 5-Document fraud, 6-Contempt or lack of respect for court rulings pertaining to innocent parties, 7-Coercive settlement tactics,  8-Knowingly making false statements during official proceedings, 9-Failure to remain impartial, and 10-Ongoing problems after the resignation of former Director Wayne Klein.”

Note: Carl and I got to know each other through my radio show and political events.  We did not know each other before that nor have we ever been “social” friends.  I have never been to his home, and he has only been to mine during events hosted there.  I consider Carl a friend and value our relationship.  While I cannot agree to the characterization that we are “distant acquaintances” I stand behind whatever other characterization Carl wishes to use as he defines, for himself, our relationship.  For several years, I have considered him a friend and a reputable lawmaker–even given the few matters upon which we’ve disagreed related to policy & politics.

None of this, of course, is real news.  The real news is related to government, the accountability of government officials for stepping over the lines of civility and legality.  Should I succeed in my current legal defense pertaining to present federal charges I’m facing, all of this talk about Carl and me will be seen as nonsense by those of sound judgment, but many questions will be still outstanding related to Francine Giani and, even more importantly, the flawed construction and operation of the Utah Department of Commerce.  Utahans, of all professions, should be demanding a dramatic reform of the Department to ensure that legal issues are dealt with and supervised by those with expertise and adequate qualifications in the law, that government employees are held to strict legal and ethical standards, and that elected officials maintain active (rather than Gov. Huntsman’s currently passive) oversight over all bureaucracy—to ensure the just treatment of all Utahans by their government.

Related News Items:

• Francine’s Domain – Scandal Brewing in Utah Government
• Utah lawmaker wanted heads to roll for ‘my friend’
• How close were Koerber and Utah legislator?
• Legal experts analyze meeting between Shurtleff, Koerber and Wimmer
• Legislative Audit Results of the Utah Division of Securities

If you liked this post, try these...

• June 29, 2009 -- Brain-Off, Mouth Open: Tom Grover Misses the Point
• February 14, 2008 -- Francine’s Domain – Scandal Brewing in Utah Government

The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
An Open Letter to Objectivists

June 15, 2009

By Rick Koerber
Founder of the Free Capitalist Project

Long after her death, it’s sad to see so many Objectivists losing sight of Ayn Rand’s personal mission. Talking like an Objectivist, referencing the characters in her books, and using the vocabulary of her movement—are all poor substitutes for acting in accordance with the ideas of an Objectivist and working to usher forth the moral revolution she so passionately advocated.

While there are notable and significant exceptions too many Objectivists that I come across on a regular basis seem to be using their intransigent atheism to justify abandoning the actual hard work of BEING real radicals for capitalism. I’m writing this criticism, not to be sensational or to attack, but to rattle a few rusty mental cages among a crowd I consider to be my friends—friends however, who seem to have succumbed to what Ms. Rand regularly described as the ‘sluggish inertia of unfocused minds.’

Before I go any further let me also offer two very distinct caveats at the outset. Number one, I am not an expert on Objectivism—though I do consider myself a diligent student. Number two; I do not mean to suggest that most Objectivists are not thinking. I mean instead to suggest that a large number of so-called Objectivists seem to be entertained and satisfied by their own thinking—in some queer sort of intellectual masturbation—rather than translating their ideas into marketable, articulated tools for ‘building a new culture on a new moral foundation.’

Somehow, almost three decades after her death, a large body of self-proclaimed followers seems to be attempting, and in large measure successfully, a tragic historical revision; namely, equating the title Objectivist (and the less used phrase ‘radical for capitalism’) with the much less diligent pursuits of being an isolated, libertarian leaning atheist. This intellectual abdication is no simple error in judgment. It is the hallmark of second-handers and amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Even worse, this betrayal is being perpetrated by a significant portion of those very people who claim to be her advocates and defenders.

Alright. If I’ve gotten the attention of my desired audience, so far my remarks have been the equivalent of taking a stick and poking it violently into a previously docile beehive. Before I’m overcome with a multitude of now irritated bees intent on me as their new target—let me back up and create some context.

I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time perhaps five years ago. So, in the world of Ayn Rand fans and students, I’m certainly not an old timer. I did, however, find Atlas Shrugged to be, quite simply, earth shaking. I literally fell in love with the characters. It wasn’t because I was enjoying the fiction. I often found the reading long and arduous. Instead, I found in Atlas Shrugged, a systematic articulation of the main conflict facing the modern world, in a way that I had only been struggling to come to terms with previously.

Nevertheless, when I finished reading the book I found myself in a sort of depression. I had grown so accustomed to coming home from the office and sitting down to spend a few hours with Dagny, Reardon, Francisco and John Galt—eagerly plowing through pages to learn how they were dealing with the moochers and looters, that when the story ended, it was like saying goodbye to new friends. I actually experienced a real feeling of emptiness and withdrawal for the first few weeks after finishing the book.

It didn’t take long however, for me to realize that it was not her characters that I had actually fallen in love with, it was Ms. Rand herself–the mind behind the characters. This realization sent me on my own personal odyssey. Soon I was reading the Fountainhead and not long after I had ordered every book I could find online, authored by Ayn Rand. I read everything. I read Objectivist Epistemology, the Night of January 16th, the Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and on and on. I was like a starving man who had been invited to a banquet feast.

Oddly, while I was certain I had never read anything like Ayn Rand’s works, the material seemed somehow familiar. My own ideas were becoming more clear, and new related ideas were not hard to grasp at all. Ironically, I was so new to reading Ms. Rand that virtually no one around me knew enough to correct me when I would refer to her as “Ann Rand” rather than Ayn.

It didn’t take long before essentially every one of my seminars, every daily radio program, and every class that I was teaching had some reference to Ayn Rand or her books. For example, my recently completed four-hundred and forty-seven page student manual for my “13 Principles of Prosperity” course, contained forty-seven direct references and over one-hundred indirect references to Ms. Rand and her works. Some days I would talk about Comprachicos on the radio, during others I’d simply be quoting John Galt to one of my students. The bottom line is—I became a very sincere and diligent student of Ms. Rand and Objectivism.

Being a Mormon, and therefore a member of the larger “Christian” community, one of the most obvious contradictions in my new intellectual landscape was that Ms. Rand was an unapologetic, unwavering atheist. As time passed two related problems emerged. My religious friends and associates began regularly expressing concern about my unflinching advocacy of Ms. Rand’s ideas and at the same time so-called Objectivists would summarily dismiss me, my arguments, my ideas, and the movement I was building, because, in their words, I was a “God-believer.”

Nevertheless, I continued studying Ms. Rand and have also worked diligently to cultivate relationships and opportunities with people from all walks of life, including Objectivists. For example, a few years ago I was extremely excited to travel with an associate to southern California to meet Yaron Brook and a few of his colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute. They represent, generally speaking, some of the exceptions that I mentioned earlier on.

Over time I’ve learned that while there exists an unfortunate camp of so-called Christians who just can’t stomach the idea that Ayn Rand, an unapologetic atheist might have known something worth studying—even more oddly and surprisingly, there exists a camp of so-called Objectivists who can’t seem to think past the possibility that there might be some of us “God-believers” whose beliefs do not necessarily clash with reason.

In 1963 Ms. Rand, in a letter to US Congressman Bruce Alger wrote:

In accordance with the principles of America and of capitalism, I recognize your right to hold any beliefs you choose—and, on the same grounds, you have to recognize my right to hold any convictions I choose. I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason. If you find that your beliefs do not clash with reason and that your political views are rational—then that is the area in which we can communicate. I sincerely hope that we can.

I think it might do my Objectivist friends well to consider a few points drawn out by this quotation from Ms. Rand.

1) There is a difference in fighting for reason and fighting against religion. Ms. Rand’s mission was the former.

2) It’s possible for a religious person and an Objectivist to communicate and cooperate when they both agree that reason is the standard in any mutual communication or endeavor.

Much more could be said about brain-off tribalists, who are eager to exclude ‘outsiders’ as a means of self-preservation. But, relevant point to these considerations is that as ‘a radical for capitalism’ myself, I’m at a loss to explain why so many Ayn Rand followers evidently think such titles are merely a slogan or private label social tattoo of sorts. Or to put the matter even more succinctly, these days it’s hard to sort out the Objectivists who are fighting for reason from those who are simply fighting against religion. In my own experience, Objectivists have twice in this past month told me that they could not assist my Free Capitalist Project since we do not disallow religious beliefs as a standard of our membership. How irrational!

In the early 1960’s Ms. Rand wrote to Senator Barry Goldwater saying,

I regard you as the only hope of the anticollectivist side on today’s political scene, and I have defended your position at every opportunity…I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one “package deal” or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion.

Ms. Rand’s willingness to have hope and confidence in someone, despite their differences in belief and opinion on a subject as significant as the existence of God—is far afield of the contemporary banter spewed forth by a large group of her followers today. Consider, I was just reading Jared Seehafer’s March 17, 2009 piece entitled, “Jesus Christ or John Galt? The Republican Party’s Identity Crisis” published by Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com), and thinking to myself—“He’s not advocating for reason, he’s fighting against religion.” It was this realization that caused me to go and dig up the two quotes used above from Letters of Ayn Rand.

In his essay Mr. Seehafer concludes,

Republicans who support capitalism need to understand that those who combine religion with politics are their enemies, and must be ostracized from the party. In order to be successful, they need to defend capitalism on ethical grounds, which means recognizing that their best pitchman is not Jesus Christ, but John Galt.

Mr. Seehafer, like many “quick-to-the-punch” atheists, evidently does not see the contradiction of his own position. He indicts Republicans for mixing religion and politics and yet he himself brings the two together in his self-created, albeit artificial and irrational dichotomy of Jesus Christ vs. John Galt. His, ‘purge through ostracization’ is the same conservative approach taken by Republicans against Objectivists over the last five decades. Perhaps even more ironically, Ms. Rand, the creator of John Galt’s character, has actually said that,

Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism—the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal…

I suppose that Mr. Seehafer and my other friends like him would not want to throw out the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a “God-believer” and the document itself (being political) references “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “the Supreme Judge of the world.” I suppose also that Mr. Seehafer is not interested in throwing out the Constitution of the United States simply because so many of its drafters were “God-believers” who invoked his name during the convention. Ms. Rand argues instead that;

The Founding Fathers were America’s first intellectuals, so far, her last. It is their basic political line that the New Intellectuals have to continue. Today, that line is lost under layer upon layer of evasions, equivocations and plain falsehood; today’s Witch Doctors claim that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was faith and uncritical compliance with tradition; today’s Attila-ists claim that the basic premise was the subordination of the individual to the collective and his sacrifice to the public good. The New Intellectuals must remind the world that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The moral premises implicit in the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, in the social system they established and in the economics of capitalism, must now be recognized and accepted in the form of an explicit moral philosophy…The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution.

The point, being missed by Mr. Seehafer and so many of my Objectivist friends, is that the question of God and issues of religion have become their knee-jerk excuse for idleness, laziness, crassness and disengagement. The mission we have before us, all of us who love our lives, is to advocate for this moral revolution. The only required foundation for that, according to Ms. Rand, is a shared commitment to two essential principles: a) emotions are not tools of cognition; b) no man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. All other philosophical contradictions—including issues surrounding God and religion—will be resolved, in time, by a group of reasonable and thinking people.

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand?

It was several years ago, after picking up a copy of For the New Intellectual for the first time, that I boarded an airplane and felt the challenge I’m attempting to convey today. I’m certain that I must have read the majority of that essay with my jaw literally gaping open. It’s probably the only flight in my life that I don’t remember uttering a single word to any other passenger. For the New Intellectual, is the most comprehensive and detailed call-to-action for those of us who value truth and love our lives – more than anything I’ve ever come across.

We reformed businessmen could benefit from the efforts of Objectivist intellectuals who can free themselves from their own irrational mental indulgences. Yet, I regularly meet so-called Objectivists who can quote or paraphrase—nothing—from that essay. How is this possible? How is it possible to be an Objectivist, or anything close, and not be committed to the revolution advocated by Ms. Rand?

Long before I had started reading Atlas Shrugged I was engaged in an effort to organize at least 300,000 members into a “free capitalist” cause. My organization, the Free Capitalist Project, advocates for capitalism as the foundation of a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the Founders. I wonder how many so-called Objectivists even recognize that language.

The second-hander’s dream of tribal prestige is no substitute for getting on with the business of this revolution. This is no theoretical project and no amount of theoretical posturing will do.

In one of the most poignant sections of his radio address, John Galt challenges:

If you find a chance to vanish into some wilderness out of their reach, do so, but not to exist as a bandit or to create a gang competing with their racket; build a productive life of your own with those who accept your moral code and are willing to struggle for a human existence…raise a standard to which the honest will repair: the standard of Life and Reason. Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity—act on your rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankind’s rebirth.”

I am a radical for capitalism. While there exists any number of different groups who could use a healthy criticism, today, I’m challenging my Objectivist friends who have become complacent and disinterested. The hollow, righteous sounding bromides so often uttered by feigned intellectuals so lucidly able to describe our culture’s impending doom—is no substitute for a deliberate, strategic and organized effort put forth in defense of Ms. Rand, Objectivism, and capitalism.

This criticism is an open invitation from some of us, who like you, have stepped out of that dismal gray vacuum of a bankrupt culture and are committed to ushering forth the producer revolution advocated consistently by Ms. Rand.

We, who are NOT about to die, salute you.

###

If you liked this post, try these...

• April 2, 2008 -- Who is Les McGuire?
• December 2, 2008 -- Capitalism, Mormonism, and the Bible
• October 27, 2008 -- God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher
• April 8, 2009 -- Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.
• August 4, 2008 -- Initiation into the Secret Brotherhood of Dads