.

You’ve got to be kidding.  I mean Rick Koerber (that’s me) did apparently win the Salt Lake Tribune’s online poll for 2009 “Utahn of the Year.”  (I too, would have hushed that up if I were the Salt Lake Tribune – LOL.)  But the Brady Bunch? You’ve got to be joking.

So, its really a funny story, but to begin with, I have to confess that when I was a kid I don’t remember watching even a single episode of the Brady Bunch.  Of course, I caught the general idea and essentially came to be mildly familiar with its theme and its after-run popularity.  Since that time I’ve understood references to the show as simple pop culture allusions to white bread, glib, two dimensional notions of the supposed ideal family.  Isn’t that pretty much everyone else’s take away when the show is now referenced in casual conversation?

Maybe it was because I was an only child raised by a struggling but dedicated, hard working cocktail waitress/bartender,  single mother and my—economically speaking—lower middle class grandparents (a blended family), in anything but a traditional/typical family setting, that I really missed the boat about the message intended by the “Brady Bunch.”

You see, it was only recently that I learned the actual lyrics to the theme song (thanks to seemingly incessant re-runs and young children) and discovered that Sherwood Schwartz conceived the idea for The Brady Bunch 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.”

Huh.  Well, assumptions are tricky things.  You see, in the midst of all the controversy surrounding me and my life this past year or so, I was pretty taken back when not long ago a professional photographer, struggling to get the eight of us to smile simultaneously, quipped, “Well, isn’t this the Brady Bunch.”

“The Brady Bunch?” I though to myself, “How funny.”  You see, I thought it was funny because the comment seemed soooo out of place.  It was obviously a social act of misspeak, right?

My wife and kids all seemed to laugh however, because I think they really “got it.”

The Brady Bunch circa 2010? The Koerber Family

My problem, I think, was that I just couldn’t see what was “white bread,” “glib,” or “two dimensional” about my little family.  Think about it for a second….

Me – a white kid, from the poor ghetto of “North Casper” Wyoming (okay that—while true— was supposed to be at least mildly funny) who grew up listening to R&B and Hip Hop, now a mid-thirties, divorced and remarried Mormon convert, “Free Capitalist,” twice broke-once rich, entrepreneur, adoptive father of three exceptional children, now facing federal indictment, who  still regularly calls out the government and corrupt bureaucrats on his increasingly popular talk radio program.

My wife – also a divorced, faithful Mormon (and mother of three awesome children), who grew up one of fifty grandchildren of a gifted scriptural and constitutional scholar, the daughter of two political, and educational reformists, who decided for herself (in what some might still suggest was a rather controversial even if bold decision) after a short stint as as a Sophomore, to forgo public schools, graduate from the Utah Home School Association, and embark on her own life mission as a teenager traveling the country with her father (and family) helping educate people about America’s Founding Fathers while at the same time building her own “Youth of America” civic awareness program for teenagers, and now an experienced businesswoman, teacher, lecturer, largely a stay-at-home 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.  I think the fact that we now also have one on the way might be the final straw in disqualifying the comparative metaphor?

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

Could we actually make a song out of this?  It would be a long song.

Did I mention that both of my youngest boys are mixed race?  I only wanted to set the record straight in case Barack and Michelle decide to advocate civil-war reparations as part of the next 2010 economic stimulus package.   I want to make sure we get “our fair share.”  I’m just sayin’…

So, the comment by our photographer about us being “The Brady Bunch” just stuck me funny.  But then again,there has been a lot of gossip about Jewel (one of the founding partners and an executive with the Free Capitalist Project) who was at one time our live-in Nanny.  Didn’t the Brady’s have one of those too?  Oh boy.  Well Jewel is definitely better looking than Alice – again, I’m just sayin‘.

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

The truth of the matter is that once you take all the disproportionate attention off of my business difficulties of ‘07 and ‘08, no political vendetta by Francine and the gang can long overshadow how much my family (with all our scratches and dents) is something for which I am exceptionally proud and thankful.

Maybe we should start a T.V. show next?  We could call it Big Agape or maybe Big Ardour – or something…

***

The photographs in this blog entry were taken this past December by the “Brady Bunch” photographer I mentioned.

Bethany, turning the world upside down.

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

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

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

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.

“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

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.

###

Not long ago I wrote a conclusion to one of my essays, that rings so true to me today, that I thought I’d share—

The only option is to choose; to make a choice when the options are clear, and the chaos and tension that accompanies conflict has not yet become overbearingly personal.

I made my choice early on, when I first encountered these people.  I made my choice before the huge successes and before the tragic business failures that have defined the last several years.  I’m not proud or happy about the business or financial failures that have so closely affected my life, and the lives of so many of my friends and loved ones.  Nor can I rest from my own labor to compensate for the ones for where I bare primary responsibility.  But failure, financially—short or long term, has never been the enemy of free citizens in America, or throughout history.   Failure, morally—to stand up for right, for freedom, and for truth—this is a failure that I consider the most serious enemy of all.  As economic freedom is threatened broadly, across all parts of the world’s citizenry, each of us are increasingly exposed the fact that we have an inescapable choice to make, individually.

How about you?  How will you react when you have your day in court (literally or figuratively)?  Do you think that somehow you can escape the consequences of the rocky cliffs ahead?  Will you just coast along the tidal wave of life that carries you about from day-to-day while you complain as you go that your life isn’t what you want? Or, will you stand up?  Will you say to freedom’s common enemy, “There is a certain point beyond which you cannot pass!”

I’m sure the slobbery thickness of brain-off emotionalism will continue to bring more people to my door in the future asking about some supposed, pretended, or actual indictment–or maybe even worse.  But, in the mean time, me and those who stand with me (including the consistently growing numbers of those who will be standing with me tomorrow and the next day, and the days after that), we will keep producing, educating, and organizing.  And, when we can squeeze it in (and I’m pretty sure it’s something we’ll not soon forget), we’ll also do what we can to make sure the complicit schmuck’s (including those in the media, the legal profession, and in key government positions) who keep overstepping their bounds, to the detriment of innocent and free citizens, are also made to face the legal consequences of their own wrongdoing.  I doubt that they’re any more anxious to face a just tribunal than have been any of history’s well known tyrants and their dimwitted, brain off accomplices.

- Thank you Ann, Clyne, Brad, Jason, Jewel, Tom, Sonny, Steve, and Israel.  Michelle was couragous, thank you dear.   Also, thank you to those who would stand / will stand – as we take the Project forward despite the challenges and obstacles in our way.  You never know exactly when you might be asked to make a decision to stand with a friend, or to stand for a cause or a principle.  Excuses are always possible, and conflicting choices by definition must be present.  But, all the talk in the world and friendly expressions built up over time — these don’t count the same as the simple, but difficult decision, to take a stand when defining moments come.

Friendship is a grand, fundamental principle (to paraphrase my greatest mortal hero) and words cannot express the feelings of friends, acting freely, to lend costly support—especially, when juding eyes are watching, gossiping lips are talking, and pointing fingers are mocking.

“We hear it shouted,” said another Wynan editorial, “that Howard Roark spends his career in and out of courtrooms.  Well, that is true.  A man like Roark is on trial before society all his life.  Whom does that indict—Roark or society?”

—from Ayn Rand’s, The Fountainhead.

NOTE:  For detailed information about the controversies surrounding Rick Koerber and FranklinSquires visit http://www.franklinsquires.com

There is something much more noteworthy about this whole affair, so widely reported across print, broadcast and web media.  As usual, the nonsense is what draws most of our attention, and the deeper substantive questions about tangible, practical implications of abusive executive behavior just slide by, whisper like.

Let me get to my point.  When asked directly, about the bow, the White House press secretary officially responded by answering, incredulously,

No, I think he bent over…with both hands to shake his hand.

Okay.  So, you might be thinking, “Alright, Rick, this isn’t news, I already heard that.”  Alright, but let’s put a few pieces together to pain a picture that you might not have thought much about.

Piece #1 – Did the President Bow?

Of course.  Watch the video.  He bows at the waist.  He uses one hand, pauses respectfully at the bottom of the bow, just for a short second before lifting himself, and then smiles and verbally greats the Saudi King.

Piece #2.  Is the President’s bow significant?

Obviously, it depends on whose asking.  But, to the large majority of the human population, bowing isn’t something done on accident.  In an April 7th editorial the Washington Times poignantly explains,

Symbolism is important in world affairs. By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States. The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king’s subjects, not his peer. There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals…Mr. Obama’s bow to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques does not help his image with those who believe he is secretly a Muslim, and why he chose to bow only to the Saudi King and not to any other royals remains unexplained.

No Americans of any station are required to bow to royalty. It is one of the pillars of American exceptionalism that our country rejected traditional caste divisions. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids titles of nobility and stipulates that no officeholder or government employee may “accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state” without the consent of Congress. Judith Martin wrote in her Miss Manners column in 2001 that bowing “is not an ordinary bit of foreign etiquette one might adopt out of courtesy when traveling. … Americans do not properly bow to any royalty. We show respect for other countries’ leaders the same way we do to our own.” (emphasis added)

In addition to the American commentary on the President’s “bending over” act, Muslim commentary also suggested it was more than insignificant.

Piece #3.  Why deny it?

Answering this question requires speculation, since the official answers are obviously less than genuine.  But, suffice it to say that, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was unprepared for the question.  It’s doubtful, if he had been prepared, that is answer would have been so indignantly sarcastic when questions persisted.  His attitude, revealed during this ordeal, is actually a telling indicator of the kind and caliber of  ideas floating around in the “inside circle” of President Barack Obama.   Lest anyone question that Obama’s team share the same nonsensical contempt for an American reporter’s desire for an honest explanation, another White House aide responded dopily (BTW: I know that’s not really a word),

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah.”

Anyone who bothered to watch the video can easily see that this buffoon had no idea what the facts actually were.  But, herein lies the POINT!

No one in the White House really seems to care what the American people “think!”  Oh, they’re concerned with how we’re all “feeling,” especially during these economic hard times.  But, when someone turns his or her brain on and starts to think (i.e., asking obvious questions about the President’s deliberate act of fealty which he reserved for Muslim royalty, leaving the job of ‘hugging’ Christian royalty to his wife), the insiders at the White House have contempt for the very question.  Remember Joe the Plumber?

This whole “President bending over” ordeal reminds me of a comedy I watched as a kid where a belligerent cheating husband was caught by his wife—in the act—with another woman.  After the immediacy of the controversy boiled over, in this B rate-early 1980’s comedy, the husband later approaches his wife and asks, “Honey, why are you so upset?”  Beside herself, she berates him immediately, describing very clearly what she had witnessed.  In the heat of the moment the man interrupts his upset wife and with his best innocent face asks, “What are you talking about?  He goes on to insist, “That is NOT what was going on, I did no such thing.”  The wife is so taken back by his insane denial that she is momentarily speechless, and to hurry up and fill the gap, the husband continues to deny that “anything actually happened.”  The absurdity made this scene, rather comical.  Illustrating how obnoxious arrogant men can be when they actually have contempt for the thinking judgments of other people.  It was comical precisely because his behavior was so absurd.

In America today, the ‘comedy of the absurd‘ being broadcast from the White House by the now popular cast has reached a new low.  While all of the administrations for the last two decades have been full of this kind of thing, none has sunk so deep and so absurdly low as to effectively look each of us Americans in the eye and say, “That’s not what happened.  I know you saw it, but you don’t know what you saw, let me tell you what you saw.”  (Note: Funny thing is that their answer to foreigners is quite different – but that is another story.)

Don’t think for a minute that all of this comical blundering was an accident.  It is in small moments of high stress and unpredictable situations that penetrating glimpses into reality can allow honest observers the chance to see what is really going on behind the curtains.  Barack Obama’s most consistent answer to us “average onlookers” is that, what really goes on behind his new White House curtains, is quite simply, “None of your business.”

Of course its not—and unfortunately it is becoming increasingly so.  Wake up my friends, and turn your brains on!  But, don’t expect any encouragement from our dominate political powers.  They’d just as soon prefer that you kept napping while a new blueprint is drawn up for a new “America” of the 21st century.

So, just keep napping, and when you awake, we might all be bowing.