Guess what I got from the Governor.

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.

“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.

Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.

As our modern culture hurls itself imperviously over the rocky cliffs of socialism in the name of rescue and bailout, normal people seem to be losing their ability to think critically and distinguish decency, fairness, civility, and honesty from rumor, rhetoric, political posturing and gossip. Its a cultural battle being waged every day in the business world, and I don’t mean just big business, I mean small business America too. The competition is decency vs. defamation. Do-gooders, versus society’s most valuable doers. In my world, the constant reminder of this battle is the fact that hardly a week goes by without someone asking me if I’m going to be indicted.

A chilling result of the crisis will be furthering the deadly process of criminalizing business failures.  In the old days when an enterprise failed, the proprietors often ended up in debtors’ prison…But in recent years, particularly after the Enron/WorldCom corporate scandals, federal and local prosecutors began actively pursuing evidence of fraud whenever a big business went bust. Yes, there has been corporate wrongdoing, and miscreants have been tried and jailed. But many noncriminal individuals have been pursued.

One notorious case was the IRS’ attempt to prosecute KPMG and a number of its partners and employees for alleged tax fraud. The shelters KPMG sold in the 1990s were not illegal. The IRS still determined, however, that they weren’t valid. That kind of tax dispute would normally be settled in civil court. Instead, prosecutors threatened KPMG with annihilation: Settle on our terms or we will hit you with an enterprise-killing indictment. Arthur Andersen had recently been destroyed by such an indictment, even though the courts subsequently threw the charges out. The feds even pressured KPMG not to pay the legal bills of the targeted individuals–which would have forced these people to settle, as they couldn’t afford the massive legal costs of defending themselves. Thankfully, a courageous federal judge stopped this abuse.

But the itch to indict remains. No sooner had Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and AIG gone bust than criminal investigators swarmed in. They will find evidence of “fraud”–why didn’t you more aggressively mark down the value of suspect paper even if there wasn’t a market for it? Why the expressions of confidence in the soundness of your businesses when the rumors of trouble were surfacing? Lost in all this will be the fact that Lehman and AIG didn’t know they were in mortal peril until almost the very end. There will be indictments. The chilling lesson: Unsuccessful risk taking or failing in business can send you to prison. (Steve Forbes, “How Capitalism Will Save Us” Forbes Magazine, Nov. 10, 2008) Emphasis added.

It’s a dumb question really. It’s not like the government, even with the most corrupt bureaucracies, normally calls up the subject of its investigation on the telephone to say, “Hey, just for your information, we’re planning to indict you.” But, the brain-off among us don’t have to be bothered with thinking—they’re too busy indulging in feeling.

In January of this year a local news reporter came to my house and asked me point blank, “But, is it fair to say you expect to be charged?”

The reporter, Brian Mullahy, and I had been having a conversation about the fact that there have been rumors about me being in trouble with the law, despite no charges, nor formal complaints and no formal allegations of wrong-doing, over the course of the last five years.  In that context, I had complained that the very existence of these persistent rumors—even the ones with no credibility whatsoever—had actually given bureaucrats the ammunition they needed to continue their years long investigation of me and my companies without any reasonable basis.

In answer to an earlier question I explained that I, in fact, had not been indicted or charged either on the state or the federal level and that I did not know what was being planned by prosecutors.This was the context for his question “But, is it fair to say you expect to be indicted?”  I thought about his question and reluctantly answered, “Sure, sure.”

I went on to say in our interview that given the modern business climate in America any businessman in a situation like mine—regardless of his innocence—would be foolish not to prepare as if an indictment were coming.  Of course, all this context was dropped when the evening newscast aired with the headline, “Utah Businessman Facing Federal Charges.”  This, of course, is a lie.  I was not then, nor have I ever in my life, been facing federal charges.

It used to be a criminal offense to slander someone like this, but now we live in a world where it’s considered by many to be journalism—while at the same time businessmen are routinely accused of criminal behavior by vague allegation, outright defamation, and little attention given to facts or statutes and usually without the businessman having done anything that can be demonstrated to be clearly against the law.  This situation, which is the fruit of socialistic ideas in government, has been a growing reality in America for the last full generation and is now a defining legacy.

As a result, it is practically impossible for a lawyer to determine what business conduct will be pronounced lawful or unlawful by the courts. This state of affairs is equally embarrassing to businessmen endeavoring to obey the law and to Government officials attempting to enforce it.” (Robert H. Jackson.  Assistant Attorney General of the United States. Later Supreme Court Justice of the United States. Anti-Trust Legislation Seen Necessary, New Jersey Law Journal, February 3, 1938, 6 N.J.L.J. 37 (1938) c. 1938 ALM Properties, Inc.)

So, our modern itch to indict, as referenced by Steve Forbes, continues to have affect in my life, and the same questions come week after week.  The rumors this past week were stirred up by none other than prominent Salt Lake attorney Rodney G. Snow.  He should know better, but we’ll talk more about that in a minute.

Indictment, indictment, in·dict·ment! Sometimes the questions come from those secretly hoping the rumors are true and that soon I’ll end up behind bars (for just what exactly, they can never quite articulate).  Sometimes the questions come from brain-off, but kind hearted friends who just want to express their sympathy (again, for what, they can’t quite articulate.) It all makes me want to throw up, to tell you the truth.

I’ve reached a point in my life where I just can’t stand the slobbery thickness of brain-off emotionalism. I care nothing for the predicaments of those whose own emotional insecurity has brought them to the point of thinking that I’m somehow a villain in their life story when at the same time they don’t have the courtesy, civility, or kind feelings sufficient to talk to me and either get the facts to clear up their misconceptions or, on the rare occasion that there is actually something amiss between us, give me the chance to take responsibility for whatever wrongs or mistakes may, in fact, be mine.

Even worse, I’ve grown sick of the ever growing popularity of the notion that in the present era of bail-outs, bank failures, unemployment and rampant foreclosures, a consumer being stupid (or at least imprudent) and loosing a lot of money somehow qualifies him or her to randomly assign blame and self-righteously demand guilt from whatever businessman seems to fits the bill at the moment—facts be damned. These people are schmucks, and those who are moved by their groveling selfishness enable the sad state of affairs, so often talked about these days.   They are complicit in our societies unyielding march towards disaster.

Do I have empathy for those whose financial situation is bleak?  Of course.  I’ve dedicated my life reaching out to and teaching these very people.  However, that is part of the problem.  Whenever you dive into deep water, in an effort to save a drowning person, you become at risk yourself.  I can’t otherwise explain how so many people whom I’ve never done business with can be so maliciously engaged in the spreading the negative rumors and gossip—almost wholly started years ago by unprincipled, privately motivated, reckless and vindictive government employees.

I once read a post on the Internet that stated, “I would love to talk to someone about the $140,000 that Rick Koerber has of mine that [he] ‘can’t pay’ me back.  Thanks. Ryan in St. George.”  Evidently I don’t qualify as the kind of  “someone” this person wants to talk with, because I have never been contacted by him.  Not only do I not recognize his name or situation, the sad reality is that I don’t know anyone in St. George, Utah named Ryan who has ever given me anywhere close to that kind of money.   I certainly do not have, nor do any of my companies have, to the best of my knowledge, any unpaid debts in any amount to someone named Ryan in St. George.

Such a small thing like this illustrates a major problem in our world today, particularly with federal grand juries.  I have known, for example, that as early as March 2008 there have been witnesses being called by the US Attorney in Salt Lake City, to testify before a federal grand jury regarding my supposed business dealings.  But in a federal grand jury proceeding I don’t have the right to confront any witnesses.  The rules of evidence are not the same, and there is no cross examination or rebuttal.  So, this guy named Ryan could be called before the grand jury, asked to testify about his $140,000, and this could be used as undisputed grounds to issue an indictment. The problem is compounded by grand jury secrecy.

The fifth amendment to the US Constitution is the legal cornerstone for federal grand juries, and the original purpose of a grand jury, including the secrecy of its proceedings, was originally to protect citizens from government abuses.  During the era of the Founders (most would be surprised to learn) there were no government attorneys.   But, today the US Attorney oversees cases before the grand jury and he (or a member of his staff) is essentially given de facto control over access to the grand jury by the public, and the secret proceedings they carry out.   Once a fair minded person begins to think through the implications of this modern court setting, serious issues regarding justice and fairness begin to emerge.

What is true about the danger of “enterprise-killing” charges today, was also true in the days following America’s revolution.  The Founders sought to protect citizens from overzealous government by ensuring federal felony charges could not be brought whimsically or too easily, thus the requirement of a grand jury.  Secrecy, during grand jury proceedings was a long standing English tradition dating back to the Magna Charta.  A critical defense of free society rests upon the notion that the very allegation of wrongdoing, made by the government, can be punitive in-and-of itself, and the process must therefore be strictly guarded.

So, the grand jury is generally supposed to be private/secret.  The idea is that before charging a free citizen with a crime, a person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, give a jury of his or her peers the opportunity to consider the case first, without exposing his reputation to ruin by the process.   Of course, there are other reasons for secrecy but the rights of individual citizens are at the foundation of the issue.

The problem today is that, with permanent government prosecutors essentially in charge of the grand jury proceedings, what was once a protection for citizens now, too often, is only an advantage to the prosecutor.  Today, there is very little check against malicious prosecution or prosecutorial misconduct when all the proceedings are conducted in secret.  Take for example the political motivation to tip the party balance in the United States Senate which utilized prosecutorial corruption in the recent case of former Alaska Senator Ted Steven’s whose case was just thrown out—after he suffered great harm to his reputation and after he lost his Senate seat, all because of the situation I’m describing.  It is therefore, not surprising, that according to experts in the field, in 95% of the cases, prosecutors simply get an indictment, whenever one is wanted.

This means that a businessman has no way of knowing in advance whether the action he takes is legal or illegal, whether he is guilty or innocent.  It means that a businessman has to live under the threat of a sudden, unpredictable disaster, taking the risk of losing everything he owns or being sentenced to jail, with his career, his reputation, his property, his fortune, the achievement of his whole lifetime left at the mercy of any ambitious young bureaucrat who, for any reason, public or private, may choose to start proceedings against him…It is a form of persecution practiced only in dictatorships and forbidden in every civilized code of law.  It is specifically forbidden by the United States Constitution.  It is not supposed to exist in the United States and it is not applied to anyone-except to businessmen. (Ayn Rand. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 50 – from a speech given at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on Dec. 17, 1961)

In my case, after a failed attempt by rogue state regulators that felt just as Ms. Rand describes, I’ve now learned more about what the federal government is up to, and what is happening before the grand jury, through rumor and gossip—than is supposed to be publicly available at all.

What good does it do to say to me, “We’re protecting your reputation Rick, by ensuring everything is done in secrecy,” when attorneys, government employees, and even members of the prosecutor’s staff are reportedly giving information about secret grand jury proceedings to their colleagues like Mr. Snow, who seem driven to spread the word around.

Lest you think its just any old attorney involved in such behavior, Mr. Snow’s resume shows just how connected he is, having worked as an Assistant US Attorney for this very same office earlier in his career.  Mr. Snow, by his privileged position, evidently not only receives special illegal exemption from the legal requirements of secrecy, but he gets to use them to further his law practice at my expense.

There is a strange, almost unnoticed drum beating in our popular culture, where economic hard times (which are the persistent handmaiden of socialism and its relatives) bring average Americans to believe that society’s producers are now somehow the villains.  Even worse, our bureaucrats, government employees, and government officials are supposed to become our heroes.  In the Founder’s generation we elected heroes to office, to keep abusive government in check.  Today we try to make heroes out of those who like to cast aspersions without consequence, spend money without accountability and who send out bureaucrats and government agents with guns, threats, and the delegated force of the people—to satisfy our itch to indict and to punish society’s white collar villains—who, in rapidly growing percentages, are increasingly men and women whose crimes can’t be described or articulated and whose actual performances and intentions are almost entirely irrelevant.  Lost is the idea that businessmen, entrepreneurs, and even corporate executives (regardless of their supposed crime) are still citizens, in a free country, presumed innocent until proven guilty—also born like the rest of us, with unalienable individual rights.

Only businessmen – the producers, the providers, the supporters, the Atlases who carry our whole economy on their shoulders-are regarded as guilty by nature and are required to prove their innocence without any definable criteria of innocence or proof, and are left at the mercy of the whim, the favor, or the malice of any publicity-seeking politician, any scheming statist, any envious mediocrity who might chance to work his way into a bureaucratic job and who feels a yen to do some [governing]. (Ayn Rand. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 44 – from a speech given at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on Dec. 17, 1961)

While we’re not yet France, we are not far behind.  Did anyone notice the report yesterday from Reuters about the poll in Paris, where almost half of all citizens now think its okay for laid off employees to actually “lock up” or “take hostage” corporate executives—without any due process of law—as part of labor bargaining?

Or, did you notice that just this week, the day after North Korea successfully test launched a long range ballistic missile that means they can not only threaten our Asian allies but Hawaii and Alaska as well, our government announced its intention to actually reduce our missile defense budget, including the money allotted for existing self-defense based weapons systems stationed in Alaska. This brings to mind former US President Ronald Reagan’s warnings in the 1960′s against appeasement and unilateral surrender to the Soviets.  But, I don’t want to get too distracted.  How about his statement regarding creeping socialism and the risk to the American businessman?

It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of property or nationalization of private business. [My note:  Today, the federal executive speaks openly about seizure and nationalization of banks and financial institutions]

It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business. [My note:  The President of the United States just fired the chief executive of GM]

The machinery of this power already exists. Lowell Mason, former anti-trust law enforcer for the Federal Trade Commission, has written “American business is being harassed, bled and even blackjacked under a preposterous crazy quilt system of laws.” There are so many that the government literally can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. (Ronald Reagan. A Time for Choosing, Speech given October 27, 1964)

This is a reality far too few American’s have sobered up to realize.  Which, brings me back to where I started.  Have I been indicted? No.  Will I be indicted?  I don’t know.  Am I preparing for it?  As best I can. Regardless of what happens, I’m sure its only more likely that I’ll eventually be indicted as I continue to criticize the government, government employees, the lazy government PR media, and now complicit lawyers.

The point, however, is that it’s not really me who will be put on trial in such a case.  It’s America, and its citizenry who are already on trial, today.

As for me, I’d actually be kind of a glad—in an odd sort of way—if I am ever indicted, because at least then I’ll be extended the courtesy and privilege of defending myself against actual charges, rather than vague insinuations and secret rumors.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not anxious to plunge headlong into a legal battle where most of the deck is already stacked against me, but I will not run from it either.  Though I’m certain it would be an extremely difficult road if that day does come—following the example of others who have tried to negotiate with unprincipled, power corrupt bureaucrats and over zealous prosecutors whose pre-condition for negotiation is an admission of guilt, is not something I will choose to accept.

I’m optimistic that this kind of conflict can still be avoided in my case, and I take steps regularly to try and ensure that is the case.  But, if it cannot be avoided, while its impossible for me to see the details in advance, or the outcome of such a fight—I refuse to fear it.  Why?  Well among other things, in most cases, there are still twelve free citizens at the final end of any verdict.

The world of [regulation] is reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously…It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict – after the fact.  (Alan Greenspan.  Later Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Paper given at the Antitrust Seminar of the National Association of Business Economists, Cleveland, September 25, 1961.)

While those with an eye to see, do indeed know the final end to this story (to paraphrase Dr. Skousen), none of us knows the details regarding our own personal challenges on the path to our ultimate rendezvous with destiny (to paraphrase another great hero of mine).  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.

God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher

This past week a Facebook friend of mine, Ruble Fisher, wrote on my Facebook wall the following critique of my oft repeated observation that “God is a Capitalist.”

Rick, you definitely have not forgotten to suggest that God is a Capitalist, but I must say that this is not true. God’s economic system is Consecration, not Capitalism. Capitalism, Communism and Socialism all have the same flaw; they are man-made systems that ultimately lead to only one place, and that is destruction.

I answered Ruble on his wall, but since that time I’ve had several people who can’t access my post, ask about my response.  So, I figured I’d just post it here (with some minor edits and several additions based upon Ruble’s subsequent responses).

I wrote: Ruble, the error in your logic is that you’ve made my proposition a tautology. You choose to see the concept referred to in my statement, by the word Capitalism, as a man made concept. You then connect this choice with your choice—to see everything not directly made by God as doomed to destruction. So in essence what you are saying is that, “Whatever is made by God will prevail, whatever is not made by God will fail and whatever Rick says (including his choice of the term Capitalism) is made by Rick, not God and therefore it is self-evidently true that Capitalism will fail.”

However, here is the challenge put to you, that you ignore.  The concept I refer to when I use the term Capitalism (and this is not my choice uniquely) is the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.

When I say that “God is a Capitalist,” I am making the argument that the concept of capitalism is NOT man made. This is the challenge you ignore by defining the proposition as a tautology and simply assuming through your restatement of your proposition that capitalism is “man made.”

Since it is an assertion inseparable from your tautology, if I want to engage you in rational discussion, I can’t respond without you claiming that whatever I say or whatever concept I uphold is “man made” since I (the one speaking) am indeed a man. Or, in other words, your position boils down to the claim that MAN can never understand God well enough to accurately label God’s truths or laws and subsequently communicate them to others.  While you don’t make this argument explicitly, its implied in your position.

Your stance, of course, is self-evidently false, when at the same time you claim that God’s system is consecration. You see, the word consecration is also a “man made” term and therefore—according to your position—our understanding of God’s truths or laws is always limited by our man made articulations or choice of terms.

Certainly, you would agree (and its consistent with the position you take) that someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.  Right?  Since any such communication is going to be limited by man’s inherent fallibility (the core of your position).

The consequence, therefore, of your position is that in order to be rationally consistent you have to abandon either the tautology or your claim that you know and have properly labeled God’s system as consecration.

I suspect you would choose giving up the tautology. If its possible for you to argue that you have an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, then certainly you are forced to admit the possibility that I might also have made an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, regardless of the term I use (which would therefore include my use of the term Capitalism).

Your only argument could be that since the “word” consecration is used in the scripture and the word capitalism is not, your word (and the conceptualization attached to it) is not man made, while mine is.  This, of course, would make any conversation between us on the subject meaningless, because I could just point out every word used in defense of your position, that is not scriptural, and that effort would become infinitely regressive.

On the chance that I’m right, and that you’d be willing to give up the tautology and actually engage in the discussion over WHY I contend that God is Capitalist, then let me advance the next stage of our intellectual exchange.

I would begin by suggesting that Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being established in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept and obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE (of either the body or the mind) against any man or group is unjust and immoral. (Notice, my not so subtle argument by articulation).

This would therefore fence out any participation in CONSECRATION by tyrants. Or more simply, CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny. Because, CONSECRATION is the surrender of all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value. YET, any attempt at CONSECRATION by any group of Christians is ultimately undermine without a fundamental respect for the tenants of CAPITALISM.

This is the premise for Apostle Stephen L. Richards (who was an attorney, grandson of Apostle Willard Richards and mentor to the late President Gordon B. Hinckley), teaching that CAPITALISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF GOD’S CELESTIAL LAW. He taught:

“Many people misunderstand and misinterpret capitalism. They think that because the word “capital” is used to designate the system that its chief purpose is to make wealthy men who are usually called capitalists and whose wealth, it is feared, is too often accumulated at the expense of poorer classes.

I admit that there are instances, altogether too many, where this comes about. But this is not the true concept of capitalism. The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.

It is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty. For one I do not want to lose it.  But we will lose it if we do not understand it and recognize its virtues.  It is not the capitalistic system itself that makes some men rich and some men poor. The men themselves do that, again with some exceptions. The system merely offers the opportunities. “

Ruble then responded.  I’ll address his response, in line by line fashion, for clarity.

Ruble writes 1: Rick, honestly, I am really trying to follow your logic, but I am unable to do so. Capitalism was not inspired by God, nor was it made by you.

I agree I did not “create” capitalism, but I have argued that it is in fact God’s doctrine.  You don’t address my argument you just ignore it.  You see, I’ve defined Capitalism as, “the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.” The basic premise of capitalism, justifying this moral position, is that man is free by right, and that all men have an equal claim to liberty.

Again, I suggest that this plan/system of men being “free” (Which I, and many others call Capitalism) is indeed authored by God.

• “…under [Christ's] head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free.”  (Mosiah 5:8)
• “Wherefore men are free according o the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 NE 2:27)
• “I stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”  (Gal:5:1)
• “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:17)
• “…according to the Spirit of God, which is also the spirit of freedom which is in them.” (Alma 61:15)
• “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”  (Rom. 8:2)
• “That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him…” (Moses 4:3)

Finally, on this I would also point out that you have completely ignored that excellent quotation I provided from an Apostle of the Lord who uses the SAME articulation of CAPITALISM that I have used and that is at issue here.

Let me remind you that he clearly pointed out, “The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”

The reason this quotation is important is that it directly counters your claim that Capitalism was not inspired by God.  It does so in two ways.

1. Elder Richards clearly articulates that Capitalism is “a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and…. is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”
2. The Doctrine and Coventants makes clear that the Constitutional law of the United States which supports “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” was indeed inspired by him.

Ruble Writes 2: Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism that is helping the inhabitants of this Earth to know the difference between good and evil. Each of these systems are evil, and God has nothing to do with them.

I have already addressed the core of your argument above, namely that God did not create capitalism.  However, you now take the matter even further, so I’ll provide some additional insight regarding your claims that “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism”, your claim that “each of these systems are evil” and you last claim that “God has nothing to do with them.”

RE: “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism.”

1. Why?  You have ignored my arguments to the contrary.
2. You offer no analysis as to how these are similar, except to repeat, implicitly, your contention that they are all “man made.”  But certainly I’ve addressed that.  But, to be clear, TRUTH is not man made, and ideas either conform to the TRUTH or they do not.  I have argued that CAPITALISM conforms the the essential Gospel truth related to the agency of man.  I have argued that God has authored this system and provided an explanation and scriptural support.  But, you simply keep repeating your assumption.  My question to you is, what if it’s not true Ruble… what if God did indeed establish the “Capitalistic system.”  I’m presenting that case, and you are ignoring it completely, and ignoring the statement by a Latter-day Apostle on the subject without any explanation.
3. How are these systems alike, besides your claim that they are man made?
4. I suggest they are extremely different.  First, Socialism and Communism are Godless.  Second, Capitalism acknowledges the supremacy of individual rights (which are central to the American System established by God) and Socialism and Communism seek to eradicate these fundamental rights.Lest you think this is just my assertion, let me quote Engles to you from his “Principles on Communism” 1847,“Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.  In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.”
   
5. Finally, I suggest that the Church has made clear distinction between these systems. Consider for example the following statement from Elder Albert E. Bowen who said,“The Lord must want and intend that His people shall be free of constraint whether enforceable or only arising out of the bindings of conscience. … That is why the Church is not satisfied with any system which leaves able people permanently dependent, and insists, on the contrary, that the true function and office of giving, is to help people [get] into a position where they can help themselves and thus be free.” (The Church Welfare Plan, Gospel Doctrine manual, 1946, p. 77.)

RE: “Each of these systems are evil.”

1. Why?  Same argument right?  They are all man made?  I’ve addressed that.
2. What would you say is actually evil about Capitalism?  We need not delve into the others because I’ll readily concede they are evil.
3. You’re still ignoring Elder Richards who directly contradicts your point when he says that the capitalistic system is “precious” and “indispensable to liberty.”  Is it your argument then, that he is simply mistaken?

RE: “God has nothing to do with them.”

1. I’ve already addressed this point above.
2. God is the author of man’s agency, certainly you would agree to that.  Capitalism is the name given to the philosophy of holding man’s agency sacred, as I’ve explained, so how can it be argued that God has nothing to do with it?
3. Do you really mean NOTHING?  Do you agree with the scripture that says not even a sparrow falls to the earth without his notice and sanction?
4. If I have not been convincing previously, perhaps you’ll consider President McKay’s suggestion in the Church News of 11/27/1954 that:The “Individaulistic, capitalistic, free enterprise system” has been the God inspired means of enabling men to raise to a level of prosperity unprecedented in “all historic time.”
   
5. Perhaps you’ll also consider Apostle Mark E. Peterson’s explanation and warning in the Church News of  April 16, 1950.“How many Latter-day Saints truly believe in the Constitution of the United States?  That Constitution stands for free initiative.  That is free agency.  In a business sense we have spoken of it as free private enterprise.  Are the Latter-day Saints as a people willing to accept the principle of free enterprise?  There are some among us who are teaching that free enterprise is wrong.  These same individuals would do away with the capitalist system, setting forth its many abuses.” He goes on to suggest that “Free Enterprise” generally and “Capitalism” specifically are both in a general sense “free agency—the principle to which Latter-day Saints are committed.”

Ruble Writes 3:  God’s economic system is Consecration.

1. Yes, but you do not define Consecration and at the same time have ignored my statement that, “Someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.”
2. Also, I argue that Consecration requires a group of men first committed to the fundamental principles of Capitalism, i.e, eschewing the initiation of force.  You ignore my argument and simply say you “disagree.”  But, why?
3. How could you ever consecrate something if a) you did not have it in your possession and b) it was not yours (by private property right) to give in the first place.  “How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak.”(Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message October 1984)
4. Any group of people who get together, as you later suggest, to live the law of consecration will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the early pilgrims who had to learn first hand how to overcome the evil of collectivism and institute the Godly inspired virtues of individuals rights, individual stewardship, and the protection of men’s individual liberty. Or in other words, how can this group ever consecrate effectively without capitalism?  You seem to believe their is some other way but you don’t elaborate.
5. You also ignore Elder Richard’s statement that the system of Capitalism, “Is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty.” Is it your suggestion that Elder Richards simply forgot about Consecration in his assessment that Capitalism (since he does not mention consecration) is the ONLY system that has been proven to protect our freedoms.
6. Perhaps you might say, “all these things are incorporated in consecration” but this would mean we agree because this is what I have said in essence, that consecration is not possible without Capitalism.  Whether you say it my way or say it like, “Consecration contains all the principles of capitalism” then you are agreeing with me that God is a Capitalist because for him to be a consecrationist he would have to “be” that by first “assuming all of the qualities of a true capitalist.”

Ruble Writes 4:  However, there are some good principles found within the Capitalistic system, one of which is private property rights.

1. You are contradicting yourself.  You have already said that you did not believe that God “had anything to do” with Capitalism.  Yet now you say it has some “good principles.”

• The scripture is clear that we should, “lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not..” and that the followers of Christ will “cleave unto every good thing…” (Moro. 7:19,28)
• The scriptures also clearly state that, “…every good gift cometh of Christ.” (Moro. 10:18) and that “Every good gift”, “cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)

Ruble Writes 5: Your “claim” that the concept that “God is a Capitalist” is not man made is something which I agree with. The “God of this World” is the author of Capitalism, and the God of this world is the enemy of all righteousness.

1. Ruble, its hard to take you seriously when you get to this point.  Are you kidding?  Do you believe that the God of this world is Satan? The God of this World is JESUS CHRIST.  And, on this point, you and I will have to agree, that HE is the author of Capitalism, which was my argument in the first place.
2. Ruble, in all sincerity, Satan is a liar, and he is NOT the God of this world.  If you have been misled or deceived on this fundamental, core doctrine of the Gospel, perhaps we ought not be having this conversation yet.  Please consider,

• “My heart tonight is filled with thanksgiving unto the Almighty God. Through the gift of His Son, who is the God of this world, we have been so magnificently blessed.” — Gordon B. Hinckley, Feb. 2001
• “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” — Spencer W. Kimball, Nov. 1977
• “His identity and his relationship to God, the Eternal Father, and as “the God of this earth,” was clearly explained when he as the risen Lord, following his crucifixion and resurrection, appeared to his people in the land Bountiful on this continent.” — Harold B. Lee, November 1973.

Ruble Writes 6: God is a consecrationist, not a Capitalist. That is simple and understandable.

It’s only simple and understandable if a) you do not define “consecrationist”, b) ignore my challenges to your definition and my counter definition—remember I originally argued that to be a consecrationist meant one who, “surrenders all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value.”  I would agree with you that God is a consecrationist, but I would argue that it first presupposes that he is first and foremost a capitalist, as I’ve been arguing.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?  What about Capitalism or Consecration creates this dichotomy?

Ruble Writes 7: Your logic is not so simple or understandable.

Okay?  What exactly don’t you understand?  Where am I being unclear?

Ruble Writes 8: To be consistent Rick, I uniformly abandon the tautology, and I stand solidly with my claim that I know and properly label God’s system “Consecration”.

Great.  I thought we would agree on abandoning the tautology.

Ruble Writes 9: [Beginning by quoting my earlier statement] “Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE against any man or group is unjust and immoral.” Your connection here is faulty and illogical.

Okay?  What is faulty about it?  Or Illgoical?

Can you consecrate without first having the private right of ownership?

Can you consecrate while resisting the idea that the initiation of FORCE is unjust and immoral?

Can any society live by consecration while tyrants abound who would mooch, or loot the wealth of the “order?”  I posit, that this is exactly why previous experiments failed, because men needed more time in our generation perfecting their ideas with regards to freedom, liberty, individual rights, and therefore CAPITALISM.

What logic allows you to counter my statement?

Ruble Writes 10: The connection between force initiation and Capitalism is strange to me. I read your explanation, but it simple does not logically hold up.

Hmmm, what do you mean?

I simply defined capitalism?  What about that definition is strange?

Stephen L. Richards also defined the system of Capitalism in consistent terms with my statements?  Did you misunderstand his statement as well?

Consider, “There are only two fundamental questions (or two aspects of the same question) that determine the nature of any social system: Does a social system recognize individual rights?  — and: Does a social system ban physical force from human relationships?

The answer to the second question is the practical implementation of the answer to the first…

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned…In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary.  Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.” (Ayn Rand: “What Is Capitalism?” Nov. 1965)

Ruble Writes 11: [Again beginning by quoting my argument first] “CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny.” I don’t agree! There can be tyrrany everywhere. We only need a group of people who truly understand the power of the Priesthood, and they will overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith.

1. Okay, finally you’ve addressed my argument.  Kind of.  What do you mean that there can be tyranny everywhere.  Certainly that statement is true by itself, but my argument was that the presence of tyranny (i.e. one or more tyrants who do not respect the basic premise of capitalism, or for the sake of further clarity, any person who does not respect the agency of man) threatens any chance of consecration.  You don’t address this.  You simply make a counter assertion.How could any number of Priesthood holders live God’s law without first casting out the tyrants?  I think Rev. Ch. 12 sets the precedent.* Note, a capitalist does not believe that ALL force is tyrannical.  It is the initiation of force that is tyrannical, but it is morally just to respond to tyranny with force in self-defense (separate argument if you want to have it.)
2. When you say that this “group of people” would have to first understand “the power of the priesthood” what you are essentially saying is that they would have to understand the fundamental tenant of a capitalist.  Right?  D&C 121:41
3. I would go a step further and say they would have to voluntarily agree to be bound by the priesthood, and would have to enter into such an agreement through covenant (private agreement based upon individual rights, including property rights).  Or in other words, we are agreeing on this point, because you have no argument against what I’ve clearly defined as Capitalism.
4. It is dangerous and naive to think that because “a group of people who truly understand the Priesthood” will ever “overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith” if that is what you are advancing as the only requirement.The implication is that somehow faith alone will “do the trick.”  It will not.  Faith is essential, no doubt.  But, the fundamental agreement mentioned in #2 and #3 above is essential.  To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the current members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorums of Seventy don’t “truly understand the Priesthood.”  I don’t think that is what you’re wanting to to do here. Is it?The Saints have been working at this for a long time, but the stumbling block has been the PRIDE of our members who accept the deceptions of the adversary, for example, rejecting capitalism through misunderstanding and mis-attribution.  Additionally, the brethren teach that in addition to UNDERSTANDING the Priesthood this same group would have to:a) commit to live by the principles
   b) have a legal right to do so and the ability to defend that legal right
   c) become temporally self-reliant and surplus generating and
   d) united through love and service to and with one another.

   These are just a few things.  I suggest that before ANY of this is affected the PRINCIPLES of CAPITALISM have to be established first, because once again TYRANNY through FORCE (of either the body or the mind) is the way Satan seeks to destroy the AGENCY of man and with that goes the chance of living in a united order.

   In modern history, neither Capitalism nor its higher, supplemental manifestation of CONSECRATION has yet been possible among any sizable group of people because no sizable group has yet established legitimate civil authority over the tyranny brought about by the members of that same society having their hearts so set upon the things of the world and gaining the the honors of other men.  It will take a moral revolution, lead indeed by those who understand the Celestial law and have covenanted to live by it, before the day of Capitalism and Consecration fully comes.  Thank goodness, God is a Capitalist—and that the revolution has begun.

Ruble Writes 12: In conclusion, Capitalism is not necessary in order to have consecration. Enoch had no knowledge of Capitalism and he created God’s consecrated society on Earth.

1. Ruble,  with respect, I suggest your biggest stumbling block is that you do not define terms.  Your argument is not against Capitalism but against some idea of what capitalism means “to you” that you have not been clearly defining.  You have yet to advance an argument against Capitalism as I have represented it—yet it is to my original argument that you’ve been intended to respond.
2. Your statement about Enoch not having any knowledge of Capitalism is to suggest that he did not have any knowledge of THE CONCEPT we’re calling capitalism and that suggestion, on your part, is without foundation.  My argument is that CAPITALISM is at its core based upon timeless truths and governed by eternal principles.  No one, Enoch included, can prosper without being mindful of these truths, and the degree to which we are mindful determines the degree to which we prosper.
3. Also, your statement about Enoch is also revealing because using the same logic I could argue that “the ‘Mormon’ Church isn’t God’s true Church because Enoch was a member of God’s true Churcha nd he never heard of it, or of the Book of Mormon for that matter.”The “NAMES” we use to define concepts do not bind the truth—in fact it is the other way around.  To the extent that we are not deliberate and diligent in educating ourselves, including taking responsibility for having a consistent rational framework for organizing our conceptual understanding of the world, we are blinded to greater truths.

My own conclusion is that, God is a Capitalist, Enoch is a Capitalist, I am a Capitalist, Jefferson is a Capitalist, Joseph Smith is a Capitalist, etc., …. you get the picture.  The men upon whom the light of truth has shined and from which social revolution has taken place to advance the eternal cause of liberty—these men are true Capitalists.

Now, with all due respect I’ve invested quite a bit of time and energy taking your casual “stabs” at an argument very seriously.  Before you answer would you please consider the following invitation of mine….

1. Read my whole argument before responding.
2. Read the references contained in my argument.
3. When responding make arguments, not just claims.  An argument consists of three essential ingredients.  First a claim (which you are good at already), second is data or an appeal to the factual basis that substantiates your claim (logic is suitable but so is reference to external realities) and finally a warrant or the “reasoning” behind why your data supports your claim.
4. Finally, will you spend some time refining your point?  I mean no disrespect when I say, you haven’t really begun to come to terms with what I’m saying when I say that “God is a Capitalist.”  You are simply launching random thoughts at a concept that seems offensive to you and it makes it a rather lengthy and cumbersome task to address all of your statements when we’re not diving very deeply into a very rich and rewarding subject.

I appreciate you taking the time to a) consider my statement, b) respond to it in a way that is both challenging and passionate and c) doing it without using techniques that are uncivil.  I look forward to further discussion… but again, I hope you’ll consider my 4-fold invitation.

Thanks for reading.

Carl Wimmer & Friends: Superheroes?

UTAH COUNTY, UT | 4 April 2008 | The Salt Lake Tribune’s least credible columnist, Paul Rolly, has recently demonstrated how scared and inept the democratic party loyalists are when conservatives get organized in Utah. Absent any credible criticism of Carl Wimmer (R – Herriman), Ken Sumsion (R-American Fork), Chris Herrod (R-Provo), Keith Grover (R-Provo) and Steve Sandstrom (R-Orem) Rolly decided to make a political argument by sarcastic metaphor, but like most liberals – he doesn’t quite come to grips with the power of action over rhetoric.

For example, Rolly whimsically claims that the GOP is out to “rescue its superheroes” because of a flier recently distributed for an event designed to support the “Fab Five” state legislators. Funny thing is that Rolly has no argument to back up why a normal, organized fund-raising event is a rescue attempt. Could Rolly imagine that the event might be instead, a victory rally?

Of course, Rolly doesn’t see it any other way, because like many in his camp he’s still too busy gloating over the Utah vouchers issue to see much of anything. In fact, Rolly’s only substantive remark in his entire essay is that “All five dutifully followed leadership’s admonition to vote for vouchers…”

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

Fact #1 – Vouchers.

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

Fact #2 – Stand-Out Legislation

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

I think it is a serious surprise to most liberals to actually try and imagine a government whose effectiveness isn’t measured in the number of new laws passed. Additionally, Rolly ignores records like Wimmer’s where fully half of his “introduced bills” were proposed amendments to existing laws, on such important subjects such as child abuse, environmental crimes, toughening prosecution on those who hurt children, etc.

Other legislation sponsored by this freshman group included immigration reform, the rights of adopted children, and the reform of certain outdated criminal codes. Of course, this isn’t “stand-out” to Rolly because it left out global warming.

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

Fact #3 – Republican Challengers

It is true that four of the five candidates mentioned are being challenged by members of their own party, however it is far too early to tell how serious the challenges are. The state and county conventions will play their role, and the newly elected delegates will get to decide if any of the challenges are serious enough to merit a primary election. The irony is that Rolly lumps Wimmer into the same analysis (Wimmer is the Mr. T of the group Paul, just to answer your question) – when he is not even opposed by a Republican. Wimmer, as Rollly notes, is opposed by a “former” Republican who is now running as a democrat. Small details, I’m sure, for Mr. Rolly.

Think about this for a minute, Dave Hogue was in the state legislature for ten years as a Republican and has now come out of the closet as a democrat (which most of us already knew by the way.) Stubborn facts.

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

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

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

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