There is certainly an interest all of us have in the economy. The economy is generally and understandably the most important political issue for most Americans. There is a lot of talk about the problems the slowdown in the housing market could be causing. I read this article tonight on AEI and thought it was noteworthy to share on how some of the largest financial firms are surviving and some possible policy proposals to safeguard America from foreign governments investing in private US companies.

Sovereign Funds Offer U.S. Big Gains, Small Risk
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27273/pub_detail.asp

For those who are interested in the Federal Reserve System and how it works, this article is a must read written by one of our nation's most intelligent and well connected individuals (Mankiw served as the Chairman for the President's Council of Economic Advisers until 2005). In this article Mankiw alludes to insulating the Federal Reserve even more from politics (aka the people and our elected representatives) in order to allow it to do what it does best. I myself am cautious of any talk about isolating the people, whose nation this is, any further from the wealth of the nation and would encourage my own lawmakers to have an open and honest discussion about the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System (The constitution gives only the House of Representatives the power to coin money) and the benefits of amending the constitution to allow for it so we can do it right and even better than it is now. The article is brief but enlightening.

How to Avoid Recession: Let the Fed Work
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27272/pub_detail.asp

Knowledge and education is key. If we don't know what to stand for, then we stand for nothing. And if we stand for nothing, we will fall for everything.

As a fellow Latter-Day Saint, or Mormon, I have listened with great interest to the coverage Mitt Romney has received from many different areas about his faith. It is interesting to me at how much of an issue this really is - or rather, it is becoming. Recently while driving into work I listened to an NPR new story on former Governor Romney and his faith. You can read/listen to it here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16315111

The topic was if a Mormon could be elected or not. Although an interesting topic, I don't think this should be an issue. The Sixth Article of the U.S. Constitution states, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." It feels an awful lot to me like this race is becoming so much less about who is going to do their best to keep their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and so much more about race, religion and gender - three things that, in my opinion, are not the rel event issue. The office of President is not about a statement of gender, race, or religion - it is about faithfully executing the office of the president and keeping their oath.

The duty of the media should not be to make the race, religion or gender of candidates the subject of discussion for any office of this Country - it should be their values, morale compass, competence, leadership experience, stands on core issues, records, plans for the future of this great land and the recognition that God does govern in the affairs of man. Let us not get distracted by the outward form and by so doing get cheated out of tangible substance - a President.

Thank you for reading.

"There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health (Dr. Richard Beeman)."

For some time now I have wanted to post something about our incredible right - the right to vote. Do we even comprehend the great responsibility that lies with this privilege? I do say privilege on purpose too - it is a right but it is also a privilege. In Brazil where I lived for two years, it was required by law to vote - a truly devastating thing (How could that be devastating? Read on).

How many times have you gone to the voting booth and seen the names for those judges going up for election, or the candidates names for the "at-large" city council seat, or that amendment for the state constitution and thought, "I don't think I have ever heard of these people. I will just re-elect whoever is the incumbent (or the opposite)", or "Well, the amendment sure does look fine to me", and they cast their ballot. But they did their duty to vote, right? Wrong. Our duty is so much more than to vote - our duty is to be an active citizen and guardian of our republic - a representative democracy. To be an active citizen and guardian requires that we be informed, vote, be as active in government as we can, and speak up when we need to.

This type of thing does happen - and I would venture to say that it happens millions upon millions of times each and every election day. By so doing I propose that we are electing people that at times do not have our best interest in mind, do not have the same agenda as they want us to believe they do, and are slowly creating a mess of our country that will be so difficult to clean up that it may just be impossible. The United States is certainly the most powerful and influential country on earth and the people we have in office are directing that country and are therefore influencing just about every man, woman and child on our planet. Isn't it prudent then for us to get our opinions from some other source than ABC News, the water cooler, or our parents?

The power to vote is perhaps our greatest right. However, the typical voter in my opinion is perhaps the greatest danger to the future of our country and way of life. The non-voter at least doesn't proactively harm the country - they just don't help it. The typical voter though is very capable of hurting it. They hurt it by being allowed to be swayed by emotion, the crowd, and the half-truths that politicians are willing to feed them in order to get their votes. Do I need to illustrate my point? Brazil is an excellent example - the entire population is forced to vote. Who do they vote for? Because they are extremely poor and have received on average only a few years of elementary education, they vote for whoever promises food to the hungry, houses to the homeless, and money to the poor. They never deliver, but they still promise and they still get re-elected and the people greatly suffer - both the informed and the uniformed. Think of Lenin's communist revolution that went worldwide. Think of Nazi Germany. Think of the French Revolution - and all of these were by the will of the people. Even more recently, think of some the most recent elections and determine how emotion, the crowd and half-truths swayed our willing voters. Think of all of the many recent political scandals around several of our prominent elected officials - all of whom were elected by the voice of the people.

As independent Americans, we should not be so willing to trust those in office but rather we should be more willing to trust facts, our own ability to research the problem, and in the power of choice to make a difference. In a CATO Institute article (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/), it closes like this:

" Whether or not the people know what they are doing, don’t they have a right to choose?

I can understand when people make this argument about self-regarding choice. Even if an individual does not know his own best interest, I normally think that he should be free to make his own mistakes. The problem with irrational voting, unfortunately, is that people who do it are not “just hurting themselves.” If the average voter is irrational, we all have to live with the consequences.

Every parent eventually asks his child, “If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?” I have an even more loaded question for those who refuse to second-guess the wisdom of the average voter: “If the majority said we all had to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you push people who refused to jump?” "

My point from that quote above is that we all suffer from the irrational voter. That is part of being "One Nation." However, those who are not informed should have the courage to not vote. Additionally, the people of our communities, states and country should make the sacrifice to become informed. We have to be more than just voters, we must become informed, active and involved. The power is within us and the duty is laid at our feet to be the guardians of this Great Republic. We indeed have a Republic - if we can keep it. It is my prayer and belief that we can.

I feel the need to at least share some information with you – my friends of the past and present – as to why I could never, in a million years, vote for Rudy Giuliani. Politicians have for a very long time tried to manipulate their followers with fear. This is not something that all politicians do but there have always been some through the years who have captured their followers through the use of this tool. I am not an anthropologist or an expert in human behavior but I know just enough to know what influences me and so I can assume it influences others as well – and faith and fear are two of the largest powers of influence.

(Isn't it interesting how very few of the candidates for president are running on a platform of faith?)

Every time I hear Rudy speak I feel sick because of what I perceive to be his complete and deliberate dishonesty to cause people to vote for him out of fear. Here are some clips that I hope will shed some light on what I am talking about. Please note before you watch the clips I am including these so you can hear Rudy's words not the commentary. I am not supporting the commentary but it is impossible to get the clips without the commentary. With that said, the first clip is of Rudy giving the reasons for why Al Qaida attacked us. In my opinion, for anyone to say what he said is just so completely preposterous that is blows my mind away. To think that 19 men would hijack airplanes and kill thousands of innocent people because they hate the freedom of women is just so completely ridiculous, false and asinine! How could anyone believe a word he speaks after hearing this is beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRwAzoIQEyU&mode=related&search=

This second clip is of him repeating the same rationale for why it was okay for us to go to Iraq and blaming it on Bill Clinton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZfBl_CI7gI&mode=related&search=

This third clip is of Rudy stating his foreign policy which makes more sense when you watch the fourth clip.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgsXBsS-1gU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mEEjX6j_f4

I feel Rudy uses the tactic of fear - he doesn't instill hope nor does he inspire us to live better, to serve one another or our country. I feel he is misguided and is misguiding his followers. I believe in democracy and I believe in our Republic. However, it needs an educated and fearless people who will see through the lies and politics to keep it alive.

Thank you again for reading.

Please take a moment to enjoy one of the great clips below if you need a 3 minute distraction. They are clean and very very comical.

Tonight I took a few moments to watch a great video clip of some of America's most renowned actors reading the Declaration of Independence on YouTube. Along the right side of the screen were other videos which had been grouped together with this one for their similar styles. Almost every single one was some kind of a conspiracy video. I didn't waste my time. For a long time I have heard from a number of different people and a number of different sources talk of government or other conspiracies. They never really mention their goals in these conspiracies but claim nonetheless their reality and potency.

Some of the conspiracies I have heard of would be the government's involvement in 9/11, the Federal Reserve system, the founding of this great nation, rigged elections by the Skull & Bone's Society, Pearl Harbor, UFOs, the man on the moon and a host of others...

I'm not convinced.

Certainly there are conspiring individuals seeking for money and power. There always have been and there always will be. However, I don't feel our current set of problems were created by some master conspirator nor do I believe that we owe all of the problems in our government, world and lives to the conspiracies of some unknown group or person.

The notion of conspiracy is a great way to feel helpless about the situation and a tool that can be used to keep the people who can do something from doing anything because they feel the solution is out of their control. However, it's not.

We have the tools and the capabilities to make a difference in this world and they start with the proper exercise of agency – actually doing something. We have a lot more power than we think. Not only can we do something; it is our right and our obligation to make this world a better place.

Here are some ways:

1. Believing you can make a difference
2. Becoming educated about issues facing your community, state, country and world
3. Voting for and supporting good leaders
4. Serving your community by donating your time, ideas, money and talents for the benefit of those around you and those far away
5. Helping to ignite hope for change and action in others

Nelson Mandela said in his 1994 inaugural speech:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so other people won't feel insecure around you. We are born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we un-consciously give other people permission to do the same. As we feel liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

“Who am I to do anything?” you ask. It is only you that can do something. If not you, then who?

Thanks for reading.

Thus penned Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and unanimously signed by the Continental Congress in 1776. These are the words that have transformed history, nations, kingdoms and our whole world. Prior to this, there was not a governor on the earth who believed, together with his people, that he received his power from the governed. Power to governwas a right – divinely bestowed and often ruthlessly used on the ruling family’s subjects.

Jefferson and the other members of Congress recognized that government was to be the servant of the people and not the other way around. They recognized therefore that the government could only possess those powers that the people were willing and able to bestow upon it.

The powers the people willfully bestowed were the powers to make laws for a just society, enforce those laws for peace and tranquility and defend the people from insurrections within and wars from without. These were powers the people themselves possessed. They possessed the ability to defend themselves, their families and their property and together with others to establish laws with consequences whereby there might be civil and peaceful living, interactions and transactions. These truths were held to be self evident.

The signers recognized that it was not possible for the people to give to the government powers that they themselves did not possess as individuals. A group of individuals cannot possess any more rights to act than an individual within that group could by themselves. Not all of the things government does presently could an individual do by themselves in the absence of government. For example, do I have the right, self evident or otherwise, to force my neighbor to go to church on my day of worship? The answer is as obvious to us today as it was to the pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock – the right to worship God or not toworship God was their choice and privilege but it was not something that could in any way be compelled upon another even if the whole society would benefit from good, moral teachings that all religions provide.

Do I have the right take from my neighbor any money? The answer if obvious there as well. I have the right to ask and they have the right to give but no one possesses the right, even in dire situations, to rob their neighbor and not be punished by the law.

We hold these truths to be self evident… and a violation of these truths is a violation of natural law and our natural rights as part of the human family.

Even well intentioned practices by, at best, a well intentioned government infringing upon the rights of its citizens is unjust and immoral and completely contra the principles of these United States. The well wish of universal healthcare provided by the government is benevolent in thought but unlawful and immoral in deed as are the practices of government welfare in almost all shapes and forms when it is done by compulsion. I don’t have the power to take anything from you to help pay for my neighbors healthcare. I don’t – and there is no way around it. There is no philosophy, no dogma, no doctrine that justifies robbing from those who have to give to those that have not – for whatever the reason. I have the right to ask you, but if I demand it and take it regardless of your will, I am breaking the law – not just U.S. Code, but natural and self evident law.

It is so obvious it is almost unbelievable.

Rather than push for more unlawful, well intentioned welfare, we should strive to have government relinquish these self proclaimed powers and have individuals love their neighbor and out of the benevolence of their own hearts, give to those in need, succor the weary, clothe the naked and feed the hungry. The government can only derive its powers from those it governs and “We the People” don’t possess the power to take away by force from anyone – but especially the good, law-abiding citizens of our nation just the same as “I a Person” don’t. Caring for those in need is one of the greatest works we could ever engage in. It doesn’t come from a government office – it comes from family caring for family, frined caring for friend, churches caring for their members and neighbors caring for one another.

It comes down to agency - the proper use of our liberty - and the usurption of this power by the government (although well intentioned) limits our ability to do what only we can do and fails to truly meet the needs of those who so badly need us.

The stated views of taxation between the two main parties are very different. The Democrat Party favors a progressive tax system. Here is the text from their party platform:

"First, we must restore our values to our tax code. We want a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, not a tax code that hoards wealth for those who already have it. With the middle class under assault like never before, we simply cannot afford the massive Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest. We should set taxes for families making more than $200,000 a year at the same level as in the late 1990s, a period of great prosperity when the wealthiest Americans thrived without special treatment. We will cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and help families meet the economic challenges of their everyday lives. And we will oppose tax increases on middle class families, including those living abroad."

On the other side of the isle, the Republican Party platform states:

"The fundamental premise of tax relief is that everyone who pays income taxes should see their income taxes reduced."

In my opinion, the definition of “fundamental premise” means they believe in a more conservative approach to taxation than the democrats but a progressive approach nonetheless. Their tax reforms did not eliminate our current progressive tax system – it only gave it a band-aid.

Our country was based on certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Adam Smith defined the pursuit of happiness as property rights. What I earn, what I buy, and what is given to me is inherently and completely mine. I have ownership of those items. What you earn, purchase or receive as a gift is likewise yours. I have no right to take them and you have no right to take what is mine. To do otherwise would be stealing and punishable by the law.

Government operates on the exact same laws that you and I operate on. As the Declaration of Independence states, it derives “its powers from the governed.” It cannot derive powers from the governed that the governed do not of themselves possess. It is not possible – to do otherwise is tyrannical and contra the principles upon which Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and others ascribed their most sacred honor and founded this nation upon.

Because of this, taxation at the start of our nation was principally a sales tax and was declared that it ought to remain so. Below is an excerpt from Federalist #21 by Alexander Hamilton:

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country."

Did you catch that last sentence? Why is it then that the majority of the government's revenue comes from an income tax? I am not sure I have the answer to my question but one thing I do know, that our income tax system is immoral and free people should demand its abolition or extreme revision in favor of a flat tax.

Why is our tax code immoral and why does it require revision? Our tax code has become a tool of manipulation by the government to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, favor certain businesses and not others and to tax people at different rates based on their income. I am reminded of one of the points from the Communist Manifesto giving clarity to the beliefs of communism: “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

Not that all of the principles of communism are bad or inherently wrong. However, this principle gives the government the power to take away from everyone – the rich as well as the poor, the fortuned as well as the unfortunate – and giving the government the distinct power to choose who to take more from and who to give more too. Such a principle is inherently evil and makes of the government a thief and a bully – a bully so big that everyone just accepts the fact that he will win and rather than be beat up every day at lunchtime just to have the bully take our money away we line up and say, “Here Uncle Sam – please take this. I promise this is what I owe you.”

I think people cringe in disbelief when it is proposed that the government is also capable of stealing and that our tax system is in fact just that. We would rather believe that somehow it is right for them to take our money because we have a democratic process whereby we choose our representatives. However, Our government has adopted this principle of the manifesto – knowingly or unknowingly it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we need to do something about it.

I support legislation that would eliminate the income tax and restore the source of revenue to the one established by the founders: an indirect tax (i.e., the sales tax).

To learn more about exciting legislation that is gaining traction in congress, please visit:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

One of the arguments used by supporters of the lead-up to the Iraq War and ever since was that we needed to fight terrorism abroad before we ended up fighting it here.

The comparison was many times brought up of Prime Minister Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler’s territorial aspirations. In 1938, Chamberlain returned from Munich with an agreement signed by Hitler and himself and stated: “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time.”

The imagery of that war lives on in our minds and the grave mistake Chamberlain made was disastrous beyond compare. There is no way we wanted to commit the same error. However, we are.

Regardless of my views on whether or not Iraq was at all related to the War on Terror, there are those countries that really are related to the War on Terror such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

We know that Saudi Arabia is a repressive regime and continues to do little to fight terrorists and we know that Osama Bin Laden lives in Pakistan. From these two places come a large number of Al Qaeda fighters but yet because they are our “allies” in this war on terror, we let them fight it their way – which happens to be almost “no way.” Just today, “President” Pervez Musharraf stated that even talks of U.S. military strikes hurt the war on terror. While we allow them to not fight the war on terror (and to privately fund terrorist groups who fight against us), we are trying to convince them to do so with huge military trade deals and international support. These trade deals, money and training for the Pakistani Army and the legitimization of the Pakistani dictatorship are a tool of appeasement. Where will this get us?

Well, if real terrorists are more dangerous than imaginary WMD, we will be in a much more dangerous position than appeasing Iraq would have been.

What should we do instead? For starters, we should urge congress to cut federal funding for military & other financial deals with these two countries, stop providing military training and support for Pakistan, and since we had no problem invading Iraq that had no links to 9/11 and took over Afghanistan looking for someone who went to Pakistan, we should have no problem sending our troops into Pakistan to get him.

I am reminded of pieces of President Bush’s second inaugural address, the principles of which I wholeheartedly agree with:

“The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way…

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right…

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty…

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.”

I agree with these statements. I say we stop appeasing these oppressive and terrorist tolerant nations and keep our word: make clear through action that any success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people and their complete cooperation in fighting Al Qaeda.

Since the last presidential election I have felt our elected officials seem to act unlike the people who were running for office and that we voted in. I know I am not alone in this sentiment. It also seems clear that republicans, although they vote together, don't support legislation that is in line with their party's platform and democracts don't vote in line with their party's platform either. The right feels the republicans have gone too far to the left and the left feels the democrats have gone too far to the right. Is this true?

When our elected officials meet in the center, this is not bad - rather it is the fruits of a republic. I feel that compromise is one of the keys of democracy. To get everything our way is not the fruits of democracy but the fruits of tyranny and a surrender of liberties. That is why we who love a republic must support outcomes that are not necessarily what we had hoped for.

With that said, I want to point out that I don't feel our elected officials have moved to the center in a spirit of compromise but have moved out of that straight line continuum to a new dimension: a dimension we could perhaps call the neocon.

It is no mystery that the neocons have very strong places in the Bush administration and have been behind several of the most influential policies of the past 6 years including No Child Left Behind, The Faith Based Initiative, and the Iraq War. These have been the children of the Bush Administration but passed by both democrats and republicans.

Democrats believed that the country would return to order when their party took over congress. However, it has not. Perhaps it will with a Democrat as President? Perhaps not. Click on the link below to read a very informative article about the possibility of a neocon Democrat. It shows that perhaps we have been thinking linearly with relation to the political spectrum when in fact we should be thinking in a different dimension. Please remember the Cato Institute is not affiliated with either the Republican or Democrat Parties.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8495

Prior to, but especially since 9/11, I have often listened to the news and have felt the desire to become more politically active. I have been elected to be a delegate to party conventions and now serve as my party’s precinct chair. I have voted in every elected since I turned 18. I have done all I thought I could to try and make an impact for good in my community but still have felt almost entirely powerless to bring about change.

Also, for the amount of time I spend listening to the news (I have a monster of a commute), I thought I should have been better educated about the issues. I felt informed, but not educated. So, I asked myself, "How can I become politically educated without getting a Ph.D. in Political Science?"

Education takes some effort but I have found that knowledge and understanding is power. An excellent place to start is to go to the sources of Washington policy: “think-tanks.”

These “think tanks” are groups that have an incredible amount of clout with Washington with former representatives, cabinet members, ambassadors and spouses of elected officials serving on their staff. Their ties are closer to policy makers than anyone I am aware of. To learn what they are recommending and why they are recommending it is an incredibly valuable key to understanding how these interest groups affect policy and therefore our liberty. Please click on the links to the right and subscribe to their e-mail alerts. You will learn more than the news could ever teach. Their opinions are well thought out, very educated and combine the ideas of some of the world’s brightest. However, not all of their views are in line with the principles of individual liberty freedom.