The ongoing saga involving Attorney General John Swallow, a southern Utah businessman, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a salacious piece of news fodder. In a nutshell, wealthy Utah businessman and philanthropist, Jeremy Johnson, is being prosecuted for large scale fraud. While under investigation, Johnson complained to Swallow that the investigators were too aggressive and sought his help. Swallow, while serving as the assistant AG under Mark Shurtleff, referred Mr. Johnson to a friend of his, Richard Rawle, who owned Check City. In doing so he was paid a $23,000 “consulting fee”. The matter allegedly expanded into an attempted $600,000 bribe of Senator Reid through lobbyists hired by Rawle. Senator Reid of course denies any involvement and the case is still under investigation. We certainly don’t know the depth of John Swallow’s involvement or lack thereof. Despite the cloud that hangs over Utah’s political processes at the moment, at least one benefit has resulted from this investigation: greater public awareness of the culture of influence peddling in Utah (and throughout the country).

Governor Gary Herbert recently indicated he would fire the attorney general if it were in his power. Of course, this has as much to do with the “cloud over the state” created by the transparency of an FBI investigation as it does the functioning of the AG’s office, which Swallow says is doing just fine. The truth is these types of activities are commonplace. In addition to using connections in government to alleviate legal pressure, such as with the Swallow allegations, other means of influencing campaigns and legislation are frequently utilized in Utah. It’s the dirty little (not-so-secret) secret that most people assume happens.

In recent years, we’ve seen numerous high-profile scandals involving politicians and private business. The most egregious and highly publicized was the Jack Abramoff scandal, which implicated dozens of White House staffers, congressional aides, congressmen, lobbyists, and their respective families and associates. Caught in this giant conspiratorial web were international aid organizations, charities, private businesses, NGOs, etc. They all knew the game and played an integral part in perpetuating it. Most funds were funneled in the form of campaign donations to both parties, through lobbyists at the behest of the entities. High priced junkets, gifts, back room deals all were used to move legislation in favor of a particular special interest. While this specific scandal was exposed and some were held accountable, the game itself did not end. I suspect the outcome will be similar in Utah. The architect, Jack Abramoff, got a few years in prison and (you guessed it) wrote a book about it, making millions more. It seems “justice” only applies to those with thinner wallets and less prominent friends.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees to each individual the right to petition government. This is a vital part of a participatory government that, in theory, sets the citizen above the public servant. The role of the elected official is, first and foremost, to protect the fundamental rights of their constituents, who are their superiors and employers. This charge is taken as an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, behind the mahogany desks and under the domes of capital buildings, our public servants too often assume the position of superiors looking to fatten their wallets and secure more lucrative future employment on K Street, as “consultants” (read: lobbyists), or writing tell-all memoirs of their time in charge. There is a paucity of servant leadership in the halls of our government. This is only slightly less true in Utah than in Washington D.C.

Finding solutions to curb ethical lapses in public service has long proven an elusive goal. Numerous ethics bills are passed that target a loophole here and there, but like a strip of tape on a leaky faucet, these bills do little to stop the flow of money into politicians’ pockets. The Roman Senator Tacitus observed, “In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.” We can make all the laws we want, but they won’t be effective absent a fundamental change in our view of government’s role in our lives. The petitioning citizen looking for special favors is sure to find a sympathetic ear unless the power of our public servants is constrained to protection of fundamental rights and nothing more. Rather than focusing so heavily on the admittedly tremendous lack of ethical judgment exhibited by an assistant attorney general allegedly accepting a consulting payment from a private party while serving in an official capacity, we ought to reexamine what we really need from our government, and strive to provide the rest for ourselves.

Presently, we are locked in a battle of competing interests which pits those who just want to be left alone and don’t ask government for much at all against those who want special favors for their pet project, paid for out of the public treasury. Many use the phrase “starve the beast” to describe the process by which we can return to a constitutionally limited government, but the truth is both parties benefit from the current arrangement and the beast is in charge. Republicans promote corporate welfare under the banner of job creation and economic development, while Democrats promote social welfare in the name of equality and charity; both attract campaign bundlers, influence peddlers, and special interests.

When the very folks who benefit from the status quo are tasked with changing it, the outlook is pretty dim. The John Swallow saga, however it results, should teach Utahns an important lesson: power corrupts. This, then, suggests the proper remedy: decentralize government to reduce power in any one person or political office, and empower people to act upon their personal responsibility. Falling short of that will produce many more Swallows in the years ahead.

His story is not unique. Such drug raids happen around 100 times every day throughout America. Each of these uses of coercion is illegitimate and disproportionate to the perceived crime. Individuals who consume a substance in their own home, when it in no way violates or threatens the rights of those around them, should not be punished with such staggering violence. There are far better ways at working to reduce the impact of drugs in our community, and it’s past time that policy makers take note and scale back the police state.

Editor’s note: The following is a lightly-edited transcription of an interview with Representative Ken Ivory.

Libertas Institute: You’ve been heavily involved in legislative efforts regarding “public lands” and financial preparedness. Please summarize your efforts regarding each, and how do they relate to one another?

Ken Ivory: The reason I ran for office was that I had always heard we were dependent upon federal funds and nobody could really pinpoint how bad it was, and by how much. Before my first session I spent a substantial amount of time with the state auditor trying to figure out the number. Turns out it’s over $5 billion out of a $13 billion budget.

In the federal government’s own financial statements, they tell us every year that their financial state is unsustainable. Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the number one risk to national security is the national debt. Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s budget-deficit commission, said that we face the most predictable economic crisis in history. If you can read a basic balance sheet and financial statement, it’s serious.

In addition to that, on a per-pupil funding basis we’re now $2.6 billion below average. You can’t make any of this up by tweaking the tax code. You would have to more than double the state income tax to even try to close the education funding gap. You’d kill the economy in the process. Increase corporate taxes 1,000% and you kill the economy. And that’s just to address that funding problem, let alone the $5 billion in federal funds each year.

So what do we do? When you look at the trajectories that continue to worsen exponentially, these are real. We live in a quarter by quarter soundbyte world, but you play these things out not many years from now, and it’s daunting. So how do we solve those big, big problems?

There’s really only one solution big enough, and that’s accessing the trillions of dollars locked up in federally controlled lands. As recently as this year, the Institute for Energy Research estimates that there’s more than $150 trillion in minerals—just minerals, not forest, not anything else—locked up in federal lands nationwide (primarily the West), excluding Alaska.

So after that first legislative session, I went to Roger Barrus who was then chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, and asked to get together during interim to find some new way of looking at the lands issue. It’s the only solution big enough. There’s nothing else out there on the horizon, short of some miraculous technological explosion, that’s really going to help us close the gap.

So we started looking at the lands issue—why it is the way it is. I wasn’t a lands expert by any means. I didn’t know the history previously, but it didn’t make sense that there should be this federal fault line at Colorado, not including Hawaii. Something’s weird there.

As we met, Kevin Carter, director of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, brought up a Supreme Court case from 2009 with a unanimous opinion, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The holding of the case was that Congress doesn’t have the authority, by unilateral subsequent action, to change the rights that were agreed upon in the state’s enabling act. Then they made a statement saying that that was particularly the case where virtually all of the state’s public lands are at stake.

This makes sense, right? It makes sense that if we do this solemn, sovereign statehood enabling act, that Congress shouldn’t be able to enact some policy on its own and change that deal. So when the Federal Land Policy and Management Act passed in 1976, where Congress said that they were going to keep the lands in federal ownership, we question whether they had the authority to do that—particularly in light of this very recent Supreme Court case.

And it turns out that nobody has ever challenged FLPMA in court. The kinds of cases about land are all about management, and yeah, the federal government is the manager. They’re the trustee. And the history on that’s very rich, going back to 1763 when the king granted a charter to some of the colonies. Only 7 of the 13 had claims to western lands. When they all declared independence in 1776 and began the war, by 1780 they were out of money. So here they are trying to figure out how to raise money—do they tax their people? This is the society of the original tea party folks, and you’re going to raise taxes on them? Good luck, right?

So the seven states said that they would sell some of the claims to their western lands, and the other six would be on their own to raise their taxes. Think of that for a second. Some would sell some land, others would have to impose taxes. The six states were almost literally up in arms, it was called The Great Embarrassment. They said that they weren’t interested in contributing their blood and treasure for the other states to end up being big, landed states to control all the west. It was a tremendous impasse in the middle of the war.

The Continental Congress came up with a proposal saying that they would hold title to the land, and you can imagine the response of the states who were fighting a war against a land baron. They didn’t want to create a new one. So the Congress clarified that they would hold title in trust, to use the land to create new states and pay the public debt. It would be collateral for debt for the war, only to be used to create new states.

Based on that assurance, the states agreed to that. In their deeds of cession—New York was first, then Virginia and others—they said that it would be only to create new states, pay the public debt, and no other use or purpose whatsoever. That was their exact language. So four of the states ceded their claims to western lands to the United States prior to the Constitution. Three of them didn’t cede their lands until after the Constitution was ratified. Georgia didn’t cede their claims until 1802.

That’s significant, because it says that the deal back in 1780 matters both before and after the Constitution. That’s Article VI Clause I of the Constitution: “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.” Many have referred to this 1780 agreement as one of these engagements that was carried through.

Then you get to Article IV of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…” Well, in the constitutional debate, there is only one page of notes regarding this clause. It simply says that they were going to preserve the status quo. They had already resolved the issue back in 1780. The article also said, “…and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” Well what there those claims? The state had claims on those lands, that they would only be used to make states and pay the public debt. The United States had claims on the land only to use them as collateral and to pay the debt of the revolutionary war.

By 1830, the government was out of debt. It’s the only time in our history where there has been no debt. So Congress had to dispose of the land. The central government wasn’t supposed to be a land baron.

LI: Why should any of this matter to the average person?

KI: It matters because it’s the only solution big enough to fund education and to protect access to the land. The federal government is shutting off access, thousands of roads all over the West. We’re losing recreation, hunting, fishing, grazing access all over the West. It’ll create jobs for local, state, and national economies. This is the only thing that will get us there.

LI: In your advocacy you often say “Where’s the Line?” Tell our readers what you mean by that.

KI: One of the most unprecedented aspects of our system is that we have this governing partnership between state and federal governments. They were both supreme within their respective spheres—one not being more supreme than the other. The federal government in its limited, delegated sphere was supreme. Everything else being reserved to the states, where they were supreme.

If you don’t understand what those respective spheres are, how do you know when there’s a problem? Our legislative attorneys, and most attorneys, are taught that supremacy is a one-way street, and anything that the federal government enters in on makes it supreme, and the state just has to relent and act as if it’s an administrative subdivision.

The idea, then, is where is that constitutional line? What are the powers of the states that the federal government is not supposed to intrude upon? John Dickinson, one of the prominent founders, said that it would be our own fault if the several states suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in our jurisdiction.

So what’s fascinating is, back in 1930 there was a particular governor who said that Congress had the right to legislate on particular subjects, but that that’s not the case in the vast number of important subjects of government, such as education, business, agriculture, insurance, social welfare, and a dozen other things. In these things, he said, Washington must not interfere. Well that governor was Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1930 he knew where the line was. And without any material change in the Constitution, since then to now, we’ve got the federal government in all of those areas and more.

So how can we defend a line that we don’t even know exists? The starting point is, is there a line between the state and federal governments in their jurisdiction, authority and powers? Clearly, there should be. And where that line is is the inquiry, so we know what we should defend and maintain along a jurisdictional line.

LI: Do you feel that Utah’s federal delegation is understanding and supportive of this effort?

KI: I think in general, very few people pause to reflect upon the fact that there is supposed to be a jurisdictional separation. Both in the state legislature, and I’m assuming in Washington, you get caught in the minutia. There are so many things going in so many different directions all the time, so it’s just a matter of putting out whatever fire is burning the hottest at the time. We don’t really pause often to think structurally, foundationally, regarding what the system is supposed to be and if we’re anywhere near that.

I would argue that the structure matters more than anything, because that was the framework designed to hold it all in orbit, if you will. I think there is a general sense that something’s not right, and yeah, we need to somehow reduce federal control and centralization. But I don’t think many people stop to say, “Wait a minute, let’s go back and look at whether there is a demarcation to specify which powers and authorities belong with the states.” What tends to happen instead is that people say, “Well, we’re at this point, so let’s just accept that and compromise.” Block grants are an example of this—that the federal government shouldn’t be doing something, so they’ll block grant it while keeping control of the strings. And we can’t even get block grants in most cases.

And when your legislative attorneys advising in government look at supremacy as a one way street, that causes problems. It’s the property law of two-year-olds: whatever they touch is theirs. They say “supremacy” so that the federal government wins, the states lose, and we just have to submit. That’s the general rule among the attorneys advising legislators. That’s a problem.

Naturally, legislators rely on these attorneys—particularly at the state level. Part-time legislators from all walks of life are often not constitutional attorneys or have not devoted all of their life to studying these structural issues. We rely upon the attorneys to advise the state in its rights and powers and authorities with respect to its partnership with the federal government. So when they default to “anything the federal government touches, it’s supreme,” it’s a challenge. It’s a big hurdle.

LI: 100% of the state income tax goes to government education. Let’s imagine your federal lands fight results in the ends you’re after. In such a scenario, do you see an opportunity to reduce or eliminate the state income tax?

KI: You know, North Dakota had the opportunity to eliminate their property tax. They chose not to for some reason, but they had sufficient revenue to do that. Yeah, there are all kinds of opportunities.

You can kind of liken it to negotiating when somebody’s airway is blocked off. If somebody is struggling for air, you’re not going to sit down and negotiate in a dispassionate fashion. Just give the guy some air! That’s all that matters. Well, in education right now, money’s not everything, but it’s certainly something. It’s a big factor. I think you solve that issue, then you have the ability in step two to determine what the best way is to work into the future on funding education in a cost-effective manner. Certainly, this shouldn’t be seen as an opportunity to simply grow government.

LI: Do states have the authority to nullify acts passed by Congress?

KI: Justice Roberts made an interesting statement a year ago. He said: “In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting ‘the simple expedient of not yielding’ to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

I had to look up the word ‘blandishments’ and it means to coax, coerce, or cajole. That’s the Supreme Court one year ago. Not 1798—now! It says to act like it, not ask or litigate. Act. I’ve been trying to ask our legislative attorneys: please tell me what that means? If we are a separate and independent sovereign, if we are to defend our prerogative and not yield… what does that mean?

LI: What response have you received from them?

KI: None.

LI: Do you feel that that’s because they don’t know?

KI: Potentially.

LI: What remedy is there, then, if state legislators rely heavily on the advice of attorneys who evidently do not understand what Utah’s own jurisdiction is?

KI: At the end of the day, these attorneys are employed by the legislature. Citizens can bring this issue to their legislators, and legislators as a body need to demand that we get advice on the rights, the powers, the authorities of the state in our role as an independent check to the federal government.

This is another statement that the Supreme Court made less than a year ago: “The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government.” Independent power of the state—what is that? We ought to know, right? And again, we’re getting no advice, we’re getting no delineation of what is that independent power, what is that jurisdiction possessed by the states but not the federal government (another statement out of the SCOTUS ruling a year ago)? What is this area where we are to not yield, and what does it mean to be a separate and independent sovereign and act like it?

So, citizens can demand of their legislators to understand that so they demand of counsel that we get advised on those things. Right now we haven’t been. In all the constitutional notes that I’ve seen on bills in three sessions, I can’t think of one where they’ve provided any arguments for federalism, offering the other side of the story apart from the typical references to the supremacy clause, general welfare clause, etc. I can’t think of a single instance where we’ve gotten that other side of the story.

LI: You referred to acting, not just talking. So in the context of the lands issue, rather than asking for permission from the federal government, what actions can be taken?

KI: It’s obviously a big issue, and we’re 117 years into this. You don’t flip a switch and get out of it overnight. The first thing that’s happening right now is that five states have passed Transfer of Public Lands legislation to begin the study. Measure twice, cut once. We’re doing that right now in Utah. South Carolina’s assembly passed a resolution supporting the transfer of public lands to western states, and we’ll be working to get other eastern states to do similar resolutions. This is all step one.

Overarching all of this is education. We can’t do what we don’t know. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard: “Well, we gave up those lands! It says right in the enabling act that they are ‘forever disclaimed’.” Oh, okay, well let’s give up. The federal government controls all the land, and let’s just give up because it says “forever disclaimed”.

Maybe we should read more of the sentence, which says, “Forever disclaim right and title until title thereto shall be extinguished.” Guess what? Alabama’s enabling act says the same thing and they’re at 2.7% public land. Louisiana’s says the same thing, they’re at 4.6%. Nebraska says the same thing, they’re 1%. North and South Dakota both say the same thing, 3.9% and 5.4% public land respectively. Utah says the same thing, and we’re 67%! So maybe it means something different than that we just gave up our land.

In fact, if you go back and look at it, that language is a quit claim. We give clean, clear title to the federal government so that as it disposes (as it’s duty bound to dispose) it does it for more money, and more quickly. It was in our best interest to give them clean, clear title so that they can do it this way. It would divert more money (at 5%) to the state education fund, and we would sooner be able to begin taxing and generating revenue off the land. That seems to make more sense, doesn’t it?

I’ve heard other arguments. One senior congressional staffer said that Utah gave up its land because we were Mormons. A 10th circuit court of appeals judge told me that the federal government controls 50% of the West because the land is so rugged. Those are some of the better answers people give as to why the federal government controls so much land.

So we need to act in this order: Education (we have to understand our rights), negotiation, legislation, litigation. This issue, this case, has never been brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. So there’s certainly opportunities there.

LI: Finally, if you could address every Utahn for two minutes, what message would you share?

KI: The promises are the same. Our statehood promises are the same with states east of Colorado, and in many cases they are word-for-word the same with respect to disposing of public lands. It’s already been done for Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida—Florida used to say that they were the worst off of the western states because the federal government wasn’t disposing of their land. They knew their history, knew their rights, banded together, and refused to be silent, refused to take no for an answer. Now they have less than 5% public lands. Hawaii was granted all of its land outright at statehood.

If they did it, why can’t we? This is the only solution big enough to fund education, to better care for the lands, to protect access, to create jobs, and grow economics. We need to refuse to be silent, refuse to take no for an answer, and communicate that to our elected officials. Congress must be compelled to honor to Utah and to our children, and for our future, the same exact promise it has honored with states east of Colorado and with Hawaii.

“Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.” —Robert A. Heinlein

As I write this, I am concerned for my own safety from my government. Imagine that—in the United States of America—a natural born citizen in the supposed “freest country in the world” is nervous to write something for fear of merely espousing and promoting an idea.

As a country, how have we come to this?

Last Wednesday, The Guardian published an article revealing that the NSA has been collecting millions of Verizon’s customer’s phone records. For the United States, this is just one more uncovered scandal of nearly half a dozen other high-profile scandals in recent weeks showing the government’s inability to be accountable and responsible for the powers and authorities it has wrongly arrogated unto itself.

The whistleblower of this particular scandal, Edward Snowden, leaked internal information concerning the NSA accessing millions of Verizon phone records. Since then, Snowden has provided an interview with The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald explaining why he became a whistleblower:

I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, but I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon, and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant… I am willing to sacrifice all of [my very comfortable life] because I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom, and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.

Given this statement, we should all ask what lengths we would go in standing for what we believe. We should ponder why there are not more men and women of such courage and resolute tenacity pushing for virtue in government—or, at least, why more people aren’t coming forward.

For those with such positions of knowledge concerning the “federation of secret law, unequal pardon, and irresistible executive powers,” we urge and plead with you—come forward with that knowledge to the public eye! Let the people of the United States realize the magnitude of their government’s deviation from its proper, authorized role, so that they can purge corruption from their own government—a government that is supposedly “of the people, by the people, and for the people!”

Recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a campaign called “If you see something, say something.” DHS has promoted this program as a “public awareness campaign” to “emphasize the importance of reporting suspicious activity to the proper local law enforcement authorities.” Many have criticized this program as the beginning of neighbor-on-neighbor surveillance for government compliance. We agree.

Now is the time for government to stand accountable for its encroachments, usurpations, and unconstitutional overreaching into the unsuspecting lives of millions of Americans! Now is the time for Americans, if they see something wrong with their government, to say something.

Patrick Henry, the famous early American statesman, once observed that “the liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Henry’s words are not applicable only to the time in which he lived, but speak of a principle that is enduring and equally relevant today. Whenever any government can so unconscionably hide its usurpations from the people, then the people only live under the façade of liberty and freedom.

Let us stand firm in our individual liberty, and demand responsible and accountable government. Let us turn the tables on tyranny and pressure government to scale back its encroachment on our privacy and our liberty. When tyranny is this obvious, it is time to speak up!

If you see something, say something!

Editor’s note: The following is a lightly-edited transcription of an interview with Erna Stewart, sister-in-law to Matthew David Stewart whose home was invaded by Ogden police over allegations of marijuana possession. Erna has been the family’s spokesperson in the months following the shootout.

Libertas Institute: For the benefit of those who aren’t familiar with the events surrounding Matthew’s shootout, please give a brief summary.

Erna Stewart: The night of January 4, 2012, Weber Morgan Narcotic Strike Force entered Matthew’s home while he was sleeping, and Matthew awoke to the sound of breaking glass. He acted instinctively, later saying that he thought he was being robbed. He was naked, so he threw on a robe. He said that the police officers fired first, but I’ve never had a chance to talk to him outside of him being recorded at the sheriff’s compound. He said they fired first, and it kind of exploded after that.

Matt got hit in the arm, in the crook of his elbow first, so he took the belt of his robe off and tied it around his elbow. He then tried to escape out the back window of his house and move to the shed. That’s where they captured him. In the firefight, Matt was wounded several times, and so did many of the officers. Jared Francom lost his life. Matthew was arrested and then the legal process against him started.

LI: Many people have responded to this story saying that Matthew shouldn’t have fired, because these were police officers. He should have known, either by seeing their gear or by hearing them shout “Police! Search warrant!”, that it was the police. How do you respond to these criticisms?

ES: I don’t know if he ever realized that it was the police. Maybe towards the end. I don’t know. First of all, several neighbors have stated that they never heard any shouting from the police. They hid the police cars across the street behind a church, so there weren’t any flashing lights visible. They weren’t fully in uniform, either. Some of them had something on them that said police, but mind you it was after 8:30pm in the dark, Matt was sleeping with the lights all off.

But Matthew never stuck his head around any of the corners to see who he was shooting at. He was just kind of sticking his hand around the corner and providing some defensive shots. Even in police testimony, they only said that they saw a hand or a shadowy figure. They themselves couldn’t identify Matthew until after the shooting had stopped. So how are we expecting Matthew to identify them, when they couldn’t identify him?

LI: Do you think it’s sensible to send multiple officers into a home at night to punish an individual suspected of possessing (but not distributing) marijuana?

ES: No. The reason why I think that is A) Matthew was not distributing. He wasn’t inviting little kids over to smoke. He wasn’t hurting anybody. It was for his person use, with no threat or harm to the community. B) It’s a waste of taxpayer money to go in and breech somebody’s home like this when it’s an alleged non-violent offender. C) We already have a SWAT team for the more dangerous behavior. D) If we’re going to be doing it, we need to do it right and follow policy.

I’ve known right from the start that the warrant was obtained illegally. We have proof, whether anybody wants to admit it or not. If you’re going to enforce the law, you need to lead by example and obey it yourself.

Let the punishment fit the crime. He wasn’t hurting anybody. Why go in and make this giant thing with guns and potentially harming neighbors with little kids in the house next door.. why create all that risk for somebody who isn’t hurting anybody, including themselves? The war on drugs really needs to end. It’s ridiculous.

LI: With multiple stories coming out of Ogden regarding drug enforcement raids gone bad, is it your impression that officers are too “trigger happy”?

ES: I don’t want to call it trigger happy… I think they’re scared. When you have an officer of the law who is scared to go out and do their job humanely and with compassion, it can be very, very dangerous. I think they do this, and make these types of mistakes. Then you have the Weber County attorney Dee Smith deeming it justified, so there are no ramifications.

It’s a horrible combination. You have scared officers with an attorney who is more than willing to overlook their mistakes.

LI: A recent survey we conducted showed that 53% of Utah voters oppose the imprisonment of individuals for the simple possession of marijuana. Do you suspect that there are any changing trends regarding public opinion on this issue?

ES: Most definitely. I think growing up it was common for my friends to smoke marijuana. As these people grow up and realize that nobody is going on a murder spree because you’re high on marijuana, or anything like that, and they realize that there are some real health benefits that can come from ending the prohibition… these people grow up and are able to influence policy and restore some common sense. I support stopping prohibition and I think more and more people do, too.

LI: Four Weber police agencies have now formed the Tactical Operations Group, which is basically SWAT-lite. Leaders in TOG have said that Matthew’s case is the “new standard” and these non-SWAT officers are now gearing up even more when serving a warrant. Do you think that increased militarization is the proper response in the wake of the shootout? Or do you think that Matthew’s case is a call for more peaceful tactics and better investigation?

ES: When I read that article, I remember thinking that it was the complete opposite direction of where we needed to head. Right from the start, we’ve called for more peaceful options. Whether they want to admit it or not, there are more peaceful ways that these laws can be enforced without violating people’s civil rights.

The thing that I’ve noticed, especially in Matthew’s case, is that police officers are more interested in “getting their guy” and getting them prosecuted, getting their money, seizing assets, whatever else. I just feel like, why couldn’t they try and find other ways? If the crime is possession of drugs, why not have them do therapy, or provide different options to work off some of their time, etc.

It’s just out of control to bust in somebody’s home over a drug addiction.

LI: A recent op-ed about the shootout by Libertas Institute’s president called the shootout a “nighttime home invasion.” You have called it a “home invasion raid.” One study shows that such drug raids occur 100 times a day throughout America. Some have objected to calling it an invasion when police obtained a search warrant, making the action legal. How do you respond to that?

ES: Sure, they might have a warrant. But maybe they had a misprint on the warrant that sends them to the wrong address. Or they might have bad information. Or they might do really poor investigative work. And then they’ll knock in your door, and you’re going to be just as mad as we are.

Take Eric Hill’s case. The cops were looking for a guy who had come home from his military post to try and see his dying father. The guy had never even lived in the house, and so the police show up and violate Eric’s rights and scare his family half to death. Now they’re traumatized and have no faith in the system. All for what? There was a warrant in that situation. It doesn’t change anything. It’s just a piece of paper.

My whole point is that you don’t have to be doing anything illegal to suffer from stuff like this. You might upset somebody who then calls the tip-a-cop phone number, or you have an officer that didn’t want to properly investigate… you don’t have to be a criminal to be a victim of this.

LI: Shortly after Matthew’s death, the family posted a statement on Facebook which contained several comments we’d like to get your comments on. First, it referenced Matthew’s “long and courageous battle with a corrupt and arrogant judicial system.” Can you elaborate?

ES: To some it might seem like minor lies, but there were instances

Take, for example, Officer Vanderwarf and his search warrant. We all but proved that he lied to get it. The judge didn’t feel like it was a big enough difference to throw the search warrant out, mainly because they still had the informant’s word. But we know that the Officer went into Matthew’s backyard to obtain information for the warrant illegally. We know that they covered up Officer Francom’s divorce. There have been so many other things throughout this whole process that we just feel like they wouldn’t have to lie if they weren’t corrupt. So that phrase reflects our growing mistrust of our local government.

LI: Next up: “Unfortunately this system has become so perverted that those people that are in power that are in power are able to lie and justify their actions after purposely violating someone’s civil rights and the rights that were supposed to be protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.” Do you sense that this is a common thing or was it unique to Matthew’s case?

ES: I think the problem that we’re starting to face is that it’s dangerous to give the wrong people too much power. I don’t think it’s an isolated incident with Matthew’s case—it’s happening all over. It’s time to start back some of that power and elect some different people who can change things.

LI: Another line referred to “the illegal assault on his home by a gang of thugs.” What was the assault “illegal” in your view, and why call police officers “thugs”?

ES: We know that the search warrant was obtained illegally and had items in warrant that were not true. Since they did not obtain it legally, then the officers had no reason to be there.

As for the thugs… there have been pictures released showing that they weren’t in full uniform. They were in street clothes. One guy had a Cheech and Chong t-shirt on, one had a Corona baseball cap. They all had jeans and tennis shoes on. They testified on the stand that they do this in order to blend in, but then they can’t be shocked when somebody feels like they’re getting robbed, because they look the way that they do.

I get that they’re undercover, but they can’t be surprised by the result. If they’re going to go into anybody’s home, first of all I would like to see them do it only for violent offenses. That’s my biggest thing. Non-violent offenses do not need a home breach. Second, if they’re going to do it, they need to do it right and safe. Evacuate the neighborhood, or at the very least the next door neighbors. And then go in wearing a full uniform.

LI: You’ve touched on the appearance of the officers, but do you think the tactics used would also classify them, in your view, as “thugs”?

ES: Matthew’s attorney mentioned this in the preliminary—the fact that once shots are fired, somebody in the house yells to evacuate and get out of the house… well that didn’t necessarily happen that night. I don’t know if it was adrenaline, or if they were scared out of their minds, I don’t know. Mistakes were made, I’m very aware of them, and I feel like anything that could have gone wrong that night did.

LI: The Facebook statement also referred to “inhumane treatment at the Weber County Correctional Institute.” Can you elaborate?

ES: I don’t want to say that Matthew was treated any differently, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he was. We’ve heard some things from people in the same cell block saying that he was treated more harshly. The fact is, every single inmate in there is treated poorly, whether officers want to admit it or not—especially the people in maximum security. They may be “hardened” criminals, but those who haven’t yet been convicted should be treated as if they are innocent, until proven guilty. That’s not happening.

What is happening is that they’re all in a cell, they each get maybe one hour every other day to come out, maybe shower, maybe make a phone call, and order the items they need. Imagine treating a dog that way. Your neighbor would call humane services and your animal would be taken away. So why are humans being treated this way, especially if they haven’t been convicted? It’s not right.

LI: Matthew’s mother told a reporter: “I’m not absolutely sure that it was suicide. I’m not. And I’m just going to throw that out there. Did he have help to kill himself?” Is this a legitimate concern the family has?

ES: There was concern, for sure, because Matthew was supposed to be protected by the people who hated him the most. They stuck him with the “cop killer” label, and then was supposed to be guarded by the officers who hated him? So who guards him from those guardians? Nobody.

It was a legitimate concern for us, but there’s a lot of emotion behind it, and it reflects the growing mistrust that we have with anybody. We don’t trust the government. It’s terrible.

LI: How do you think that trust can be restored, if at all?

ES: I don’t know. I would like to think that trust could be restored, but I have had very few people ask me my stance on all of this. Weber County attorney Dee Smith has never once tried to make an appointment with Matthew’s family members to talk to us about anything. He’s been condemning the whole time, without making any effort to talk to us. We didn’t get that kind of treatment.

We mistrust of government doesn’t stem only from the night of January 4. It started there, but it grew and got worse in light of how we’ve been treated since that time.

LI: Would moving to another location, having a fresh start, lead to more trust? Or is this a more systemic thing that isn’t specific to Ogden?

ES: I think the only way is to maybe move to a podunk little town where I knew the Sheriff and saw him helping little old ladies to their car instead of bashing down doors. Maybe. But I think this is all part of a growing trend, and big cities are only going to get worse. That’s what I’m trying to continue this fight. The war on drugs or terrorism isn’t about “serving” and “protecting” people. It leads police to fight the very people they’re supposed to be helping.

LI: Do you feel that police are held to a different standard than individuals are regarding the proper use and level of force?

ES: The standard between civilians and police officers are highly different, and I don’t think that’s right. We need to have more people looking at situations where police officers have used force to see if it was absolutely necessary and justified. And if there was another way to resolve the problem without the use of violence, then the officer should be charged criminally. Why aren’t officers whose shootings were ruled unjustified being charged?

LI: How do you feel that media coverage has been with Matthew’s case?

ES: Right from the start, it was really brutal. Very one sided. That’s why we decided that we needed to start addressing the media and using it to get our own message across. The media was out to hang him, especially with the rumors that were coming out. After the shooting happened it was claimed that Matthew had a bomb in his house. Then there were reports that he had child pornography on his computer. Then they found a photo of Matthew dressed up as Saddam Hussein for Halloween 6-7 years before and people started throwing around the “terrorist” label… it was really out of control. We couldn’t let the media railroad Matthew like that, so that’s why we began to speak out.

LI: Some officers have harassed members of the family in social media. Do you feel that this behavior is indicative of the relationship between officers and citizens?

ES: First, I would like to throw this out there to the officers: we have felt your pain right from the start. Second, nobody in Matthew’s family, or any of his supporters that I know of, has verbally assaulted or harassed officers, or said hurtful things like they have. It doesn’t seem very professional to me, and I don’t think they’re winning anybody over by doing that. It’s heartless.

I know there’s a lot of emotion related to this case. I understand that. But this shows what I think is a growing realization, that maybe officers aren’t always as compassionate or service-minded as they once were.

LI: Where do you think blame ultimately likes for Matthew’s death?

ES: Had the home breach not happened, I think Matthew would still be home with us. I feel like the course of everything that took place, and the way the system was set up, Matthew saw that he would have a long fight, and I think he just ran out of steam. I think he didn’t see a great future for himself. He said from the beginning that he believed in the truth, and I think he saw that it wasn’t going to come out, so he chose to use the only power they left him with and choose the hour of his own demise.

LI: Finally, if you had the attention of the Utah legislature for two minutes, what would you say to them?

ES: I would want to look at each one of them in their eyes, and ask them: when did getting prosecutions become more important than saving somebody’s life? I feel like the path that Utah has taken is slippery and in the wrong direction. It’s time to get things back to a point where you regain the respect of each citizen. Save the state some money too—get these non-violent offenders out of prison, and stop spending so much money on police officers to go after them like this. There are so many different routes that we could possibly take, and as of now I’m not seeing anybody at the state looking into this. Listen to the people, because you cant ignore a whole community. I don’t do drugs myself. I feel like I’m speaking out out of passion, trying to get the government to pay attention to more than just one side.

Problem is, they control purse strings, programs, and policies that affect our lives—sometimes in a very intimate or oppressive way. This week’s double-whammy of NSA scandals reveals the magnitude to which these other people can invade the privacy of any given innocent person.

Here in Utah, we now have a special connection to this story, as the NSA’s largest facility is being built in our backyard. When this was announced over three years ago, I penned an op-ed detailing my frustration with some of the local politicians who were fawning over the development. Governor Herbert called it a “godsend” and a “win, win, win.” Representative Chaffetz called it a “benefit to our economy.” The lieutenant governor said that the NSA is “welcome in Utah.”

These and other statements of praise at the time were chiefly economic in nature. The economy was sagging, construction was especially affected, and the 5-10,000 construction jobs the NSA facility would generate were eagerly anticipated by politicians who govern guided by the wrong metrics. In the op-ed I asked, “Have we become so myopically focused that alleged job creation is the solitary metric by which we judge any action?”

At the time of the announcement, the civil liberties question was also raised. One report notes:

The [NSA] center’s work will be done while “observing strict guidelines to preserve civil liberties,” [NSA Deputy Director] Gaffney said. Because of the secret nature of that work, however, citizens will have to rely on congressional oversight to ensure those liberties are not violated, he said.

Gov. Gary Herbert said there’s always a question of whether such an effort encroaches on civil liberties, but he has been reassured only “appropriate activity will be conducted, according to constitutional law.”

This reassurance came from people who have been lying to the American public, for years, about what they are doing. Politicians have been far too trusting and deferential to the gatekeepers, trusting that they are watching themselves. We’re told that Congress is able to provide sufficient oversight, but one congressman told me just yesterday that getting information from the NSA is lying trying to pull out a dragon’s tooth. Even the “watchers” are kept in the dark.

Had this week’s information come to light four years ago, would local officials have objected to the NSA facility coming to Utah? It’s doubtful; the lure of job creation is quite strong, as is the pseudo-patriotic claim that the federal government’s spying activities are necessary for fighting terrorism (whatever that means these days) and protecting national security.

So we patiently wait for these politicians either to be educated or replaced, such that elected officials actively work to protect the privacy and liberty of each innocent individual. The NSA’s facility being built in our backyard will stand for decades as a testament to the political short-sightedness of local officials who chased after a few fleeting dollars and bought into the PR being promoted by one of the world’s most deceptive, secretive spy agencies.

Editor’s note: The following is a lightly-edited transcription of an interview with William Binney, a former employee with the NSA who after over 30 years with the agency quit and became a whistleblower, bringing to light many of their illegal activities and mass surveillance of American citizens.

Libertas Institute: Please describe your work experience with the NSA.

William Binney: For approximately 28 years, I was primarily involved in breaking codes and dealing with ciphers and data systems and solving those, and working with data, trying to do threat assessment with all of that data that we had.

After a while, I became the Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group. What that meant was that I had to expand my thinking around the world, and the major problem was data with the web and everything. That’s when I started designing programs to handle that information and be able to select out what was important and what wasn’t.

Then I started implementing those programs, and NSA took those programs and started to direct in domestic data. When they did that, that’s when I left. I couldn’t be a party to that.

LI: What actions has the government taken as a result of your whistle-blowing activities?

WB: They blackballed us for no work, they raided our homes, they tried to frame us three different times on charges. The fortunate part was that I found data that showed evidence of malicious prosecution, so they backed off all of that. If they hadn’t, they would have been exposed in court.

LI: Why do you suppose that they took those retaliatory actions against you?

WB: I was among another five people who were really complaining about NSA. Under the regulations for employment with the government, you’re required to report fraud, waste, and abuse. And that’s to be done to the Inspector General at the Department of Defense. So that’s what we did.

Specifically, with a program called “trailblazer“, they were wasting a billion dollars on that program, when all the issues with it have already been solved, and we had been part of that solution.

LI: But why retaliate? Because they were so invested in the outcome of the project?

WB: Yes, and all the companies that were involved in it. They all had a vested interest in keeping it going.

LI: Just three months ago, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee that the NSA does not collect any type of data on millions of Americans. NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines also claimed that the “NSA is not an indiscriminate vacuum, collecting anything and everything.” This week’s leaks suggest that is completely false. Why do you think they lied?

WB: They’re eating crow right now. Those are lies. Those are just outright lies. Obviously they are, with that court order. They’re scooping up the metadata of everything, and the PRISM program is a scoop up of actual content. Emails, video, photographs, all of that—that’s content. So they’re collecting all of it, and it’s a big vacuum. So you know, those are just outright lies.

LI: Do you think there is a pattern of deceit within the intelligence community? Are these lies representative of more lies being fed to the public?

WB: Oh yes. I call it techno-babble. They’re outright lying to the public and are trying to hide it. That’s why everything’s a secret interpretation or secret decision. You know, and now they’re all eating crow in public. The point is that they never had to do it from the beginning. There were ways and means that I had showed them how to do it while protecting U.S. citizens. You could do that, and find all the bad guys in the world and not have to violate the constitutional rights of everybody.

LI: So why didn’t they follow your advice?

WB: Well, because they wanted to have leverage on everybody in the country, okay? That’s what Cheney wanted to do. I’m sure that was the issue. Do you want to know who’s in the tea party, and then tell the IRS who to target? Or things like that. Those are all possible things using these programs.

LI: With the Verizon leak this week, do you think that’s an isolated event, or indicative of a whole lot more?

WB: That court order was 13-80. The 80th order of just this year. It’s been going on a long time.

LI: The second leak this week was about PRISM, where the NSA appears to tap directly into Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and other companies’ servers to access whatever data they want without a warrant. What is your knowledge of, or thoughts regarding, this program?

WB: I just saw the report, and I wasn’t aware of that program. But I figured it was going on, because they were just another source of input of information. The telecoms were giving NSA access to their communication lines. The Narus devices that the NSA put in different rooms around the AT&T fiber-optic network, or Verizon’s network, couldn’t collect everything. They could get most of it, but they couldn’t get it all. So in order to get all the data, they had to go to the service providers to fill in the blanks. That’s what the PRISM program is for—to fill in the blanks. It also gives the FBI basis for introducing evidence into court.

LI: A couple of these companies have come out and said that they don’t provide this data to the NSA. Do you suspect that they are lying?

WB: Oh, yeah. Obviously. Absolutely.

LI: How much data do you estimate will be able to be stored at the NSA facility in Utah?

WB: I simply took what was commercially available off of cleversafe.com, which is 10 exabytes in 200 square feet. Then I divided 200 square feet into the 100,000 square feet of storage that will be at the facility. Then you get 5,000 exabytes stored in that area. That’s five zetabytes. What that means is around 500 years of the world’s communications, if they used all the space for that purpose. I figure they wouldn’t have to do more than 100 years, and the rest of it they can use with parallel processors to try to break codes.

LI: Speaking of the average American citizen, how much data would you estimate the government has collected on them, and what type of information?

WB: It’s everything—phones, emails, twitter, any kind of digital communications that they’ve had. I think it’s into banking as well, but I don’t know that for sure. I do believe they’re doing it. My estimate is that there’s a little over 280 million Americans in the database, several times because one person can have a work phone, home phone, mobile phone, online banking, multiple email addresses. 280 million people are in there at least, and the ones that aren’t are babies in cribs, people in hospice, others not doing anything electronic. Each person is in there between several hundred and several thousand times. It’s aggregated data over a now 12 year period.

LI: Now that they’ve been challenged, federal officials are claiming that this massive data collection has thwarted a terrorist attack. Assuming that’s even true (not that they have much credibility right now), do you believe that preventing attacks is a justifiable reason to conduct this massive surveillance?

WB: No. You see, I left the government with a way to do it without violating the privacy of U.S. citizens. They chose not to do that. That was a conscious choice that they made.

LI: Lawsuits made against the government to obtain information regarding the surveillance of American citizens have often been tossed out because of the government’s “national security” or “state’s secret” claims. Do you think there is a valid need for the NSA to be so secretive, or do you think these roadblocks are merely to cover up their illegal activity?

WB: The roadblocks are to cover up their illegal activity. They didn’t have to do any of this because of the technologies I left them with. There were things they could have done that would have eliminated any need to spy on everybody in the country. They chose not to, and chose to collect all the data. Now they have the expense of transporting the data from where it was collected to where it has to be stored. Eventually they had to build more storage, like they are at the facility in Utah. They’re not making any decisions as to what is good data and bad data—they don’t know, so they have to store it all in the hopes of retroactively going back and analyzing it sometime in the future to figure out what’s important.

LI: Have you ever been asked to testify before Congress?

WB: No, but I’ve sure been itching to do it.

LI: If you were asked to testify before Congress and give a statement, what message would you deliver?

WB: The intelligence community is feeding you a line of babble, and since you have no capacity to figure out what is right or wrong or mediocre in any of it, you simply take them at their word and that’s the wrong thing to do.

Congress does not want me testifying. If I do testify, they can no longer claim plausible deniability. That’s one of the reasons we’re not down there, all the whistleblowers.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Opponents of nullification tend to leave out seven key words: “which shall be made in pursuance thereof.” When this qualifying context is omitted, one would of course come to the conclusion that federal law trumps conflicting state and local laws every time. Under this interpretation, the federal government holds supreme power—without exception—and states can only exercise those powers that their federal overlords permit them to.

This nation’s founders were much wiser than that. They set up a system of checks and balances within a compound constitutional republic. Many mistakenly assume that the only checks needed against the federal government are located in the federal government itself through the operation of three separate branches: the legislative, judicial, and executive. It’s important to note that the founders also intended the separate, sovereign states to be a check and balance on federal power when the national government overstepped its constitutional authority.

Even Alexander Hamilton, an ardent proponent of a strong central government, understood that the supremacy clause only applied to laws created within the bounds of the constitution. He spoke these words to the New York ratifying convention in 1788:

I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding…

William Davie of North Carolina responded to concerns over the Supremacy Clause by stating:

This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations.

It is clear in these quotes, and many other similar statements on the subject, that federal law is only supreme when “made in pursuance” of the enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson stated, “where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” A proper understanding of the Supremacy Clause is an essential first step in fighting against the overreach of the federal government.

Matthew David Stewart may have hung himself in his prison cell last week, but that does not mean that he alone bears the blame for his premature death. In fact, the government is responsible for putting him in the unfortunate circumstances that led to his desire to escape the grim future that faced him.

Little sympathy exists for the man dubbed by the media as an accused “cop killer.” When members of the Weber Morgan Narcotics Strike Force invaded Stewart’s home using a “knock and announce” warrant, the army veteran was awoken by the sound of breaking glass. Acting on training and instinct, Stewart fought back against the intruders. The ensuing firefight resulted in multiple shots to Stewart, and one officer dying and five others being wounded.

Stewart was not engaged in human trafficking. He was not abusing a family member. He was not plotting to rob a bank or bomb a government building. Instead, the alleged crime for which such a heavy-handed assault was deemed necessary was that he was growing a plant, marijuana, for his own personal consumption.

Whatever your position on the benefits or dangers of using such a substance, it makes little sense to enforce its prohibition with nighttime home invasions by militarized police officers who are ready and willing to shoot to kill. Extreme violence in Stewart’s case was brought to bear against the mere possession of a drug—not homemade explosives, child pornography, or something else that might merit such a response.

In short, the events that led to the shootout with Stewart, Officer Francom’s death, and last week’s suicide were completely unnecessary. Because the government authorized and ordered the home invasion, it bears the blame for the tragic consequences which resulted.

Matthew David Stewart died because Utah’s government criminalizes possession of certain drugs and throws these nonviolent people into cages, rather than treating their drug addictions and confining more coercive punishment only to those who violate another person’s rights.

Matthew David Stewart died because agents in a “Strike Force” appear eager to use their expensive equipment and frequent training in whatever situation that presents itself, rather than employing violent tactics only in the most necessary and exigent of circumstances. The same unit’s killing of Todd Blair the year before adds weight to this claim; officers in Ogden appear to be making the news in all the wrong ways.

Matthew David Stewart died because, as the notorious “cop killer,” the public at large quickly presumed him guilty and few seemed willing to believe that he had actually fired back in self defense. Society’s near deification of police officers meant that Stewart was unlikely to find any sympathy for his side of the story.

Ultimately, Stewart is responsible for taking his own life. But we are all responsible for tolerating, and in many cases praising, the policies and tactics that lead to such situations.

Milton Friedman once said, “Every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence.”

The invasion of Stewart’s home and the subsequent shootout is not unique; paramilitary drug raids occur over 100 times a day throughout America. Otherwise peaceful people are frequently arrested, often imprisoned, and occasionally killed because they chose to ingest a substance prohibited by the state. And sometimes, the agents of the state tasked with using such force are met with resistance.

Neither Officer Francom nor Matthew David Stewart had to die. There were and are much better ways of dealing with drugs—methods that respect and protect the lives of both police officers and alleged drug users. Stewart is not fully responsible for firing back at his intruders and ending his own life last week. The state bears part of the blame.

While we mourn the lives lost on both sides of the “war on drugs,” let’s not minimize their importance by settling for the status quo. Francom’s fatality and Stewart’s suicide should become the foundation of a much needed discussion in Utah to reform prohibition policies and the tactics employed to enforce them.

The Utah State Office of Education runs a variety of “Child Nutrition Programs” which are as follows:

• After School Snack Program (provides food to children enrolled in after school activities)
• Child and Adult Care Food Program (pays for food and other aid to eligible child care centers, family and group day care homes, adult day care centers, and outside-school-hours care programs)
• Family Day Care Homes program (funds meals to children 12 and under in day care homes)
• Food Distribution Program (purchases food in bulk to be stored and transported to schools)
• Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (provides free fruit and vegetables to all enrolled students in participating schools throughout the school day)
• National School Breakfast Program (provides free or reduced-fee breakfast to qualifying students)
• National School Lunch Program (provides free or reduced-fee lunch to qualifying students)
• Special Milk Program (provides milk to children who do not participate in other child nutrition programs)
• Summer Food Service Program (offers free breakfast, lunch, snacks, and dinner to children during summer vacations, interim, and off-track periods)

The bulk of funding for these programs comes from the federal government. In Fiscal Year 2012, the state received $141 million in funding from a variety of federal programs to offer these programs to school children. State revenue directed towards the programs in the same year amounted to over $32 million, or 18.5% of the total.

99.5% of that state funding came from the sale of wine and liquor within the state. By law, 10% of the gross sales from liquor stores in the state (which are owned, managed, and regulated by the government) are transferred to the school lunch program.

What this effectively means is that alcohol sales fund free food for children in the state. Perhaps those in the education industry are happy to take whatever funding they can get, but an outside observer is compelled to objectively analyze the funding relationship and wonder whether it is appropriate.

Given the state’s illegitimate involvement in the alcohol industry, it at least makes sense to funnel funds back into the same enterprise; profit could sensibly used to cover the cost to maintain facilities, employ staff, and cover other governmental services specifically related to alcohol consumption, such as DUI enforcement.

What makes much less sense is providing warm meals to children in need because somebody else wanted to drink vodka. This is a redistribution of wealth, and an awkward one—especially in a state where many policy makers frown upon alcohol and, in theory (but very rarely in practice), object to socialism.

37.3% of children provided meals at school receive them for free or at reduced cost. Out of 589,342 participating children, 369,342 of them paid. Plenty of families can afford the meals and prefer the convenience over packing lunches. Obviously, this is not true for all.

What, then, is the proper method of providing services to those in need? Should an unrelated group of people be taxed to cover costs? Or can something more appropriate be done?

Ultimately, this form of welfare is a counterfeit version of charity. Instead of imposing the financial burden upon an ignorant third party, children and their parents should be encouraged to assist their peers, with whom they have direct contact, and where existing relationships can be strengthened through actual charity. Parents can be informed about the need, and those able to do so can pay for their child’s meal as well as another’s.

Additionally, meal fees could be incrementally raised across the board in order to generate extra revenue to provide free or reduced cost meals to those in need. While still technically a tax, it is far superior to imposing the financial burden upon an unrelated group of individuals. In this situation, those voluntarily participating in the meal services provided by the school would know that they are helping provide the same service to others in need.

It is clear that meal services are needed, but the status quo relies upon a funding relationship that should not exist. A government that protects life, liberty, and property must not exceeds its bounds to redistribute wealth and care for the needy, since doing so would violate the basic protections for which it exists in the first place. Instead, individuals should be encouraged to fulfill their personal responsibility to provide for themselves and take care of those within their sphere of influence.