Here are some interesting excerpts from an article I saw today that was written from quotes obtained by Vanity Fair which is doing an oral history of the Bush White House. It's a quick read but telling:

I felt this was an important article to share just a week after the US Department of Justice said that Mexican Drug Lords pose the largest organized crime threat to the United States. In light of that, what is happening across the street has much more potential to harm the average American than what is happening across the globe. More than 1300 US Citizens have died in Mexico during the past 6 years. That number is more than 25% of how many US soldiers have died in combat in Iraq. Startling. I predict that as the Mexican government proves innefectual in handling this threat we will see more and more US involvement across our southern border to defeat the largest organized crime threat to our society. We need to lend our support and therefore we need to get our own house in order so we can.


MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican police on Sunday found nine decapitated bodies and the army identified eight soldiers who had died fighting powerful drug gangs and whose murders were seen as a brazen challenge to the government.

The bodies showed signs of torture. They were left on the side of a highway about an hour north of the tourist resort of Acapulco in the southern state of Guerrero, state police said.

Their heads were stuffed in a plastic bag and left outside a shopping center.

Mexico's President Feline Calderon has deployed tens of thousands of troops and police since 2006 to take on drug cartels. The defense ministry vowed not to back down despite its latest losses.

"They are trying to scare the military. Regardless, the ministry promises to continue fighting," it said in a statement.

The ministry released the names of eight decapitated soldiers but said one of them was recovered on December 9.

Drug killings throughout Mexico have more than doubled to over 5,300 this year, scaring off investment and tourists. The United States has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to help its southern neighbor fight the cartels.

The Mexican army has made some prominent captures, but the cartels seem able to quickly replace their losses. Meanwhile, a growing number of police have been gruesomely murdered.
A note left with the severed heads warned of more decapitations, the state police said.

(Reporting by Jason Lange and Armando Tovar, editing by Alan Elsner)

Accessed at http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4BK1HO20081222 on December 22, 2008.

Ever wonder why the middle is a safer place to be to help your cause? If a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth a billion of them...

Do want to look into the possible, likely future? Do you want to know what kind of world you and your children or grandchildren will possibly living in in 2025? Take the time to read this. Some things may surprise you, others may not. The NIC is part of the Federal Government and reports to the Director of National Intelligence.

GLOBAL TRENDS 2025: THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL'S 2025 PROJECT

From the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council

"Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World" is the fourth unclassified report prepared by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in recent years that takes a long-term view of the future. It offers a fresh look at how key global trends might develop over the next 15 years to influence world events. Our report is not meant to be an exercise in prediction or crystal ball-gazing. Mindful that there are many possible "futures," we offer a range of possibilities and potential discontinuities, as a way of opening our minds to developments we might otherwise miss.
Some of our preliminary assessments are highlighted below:

• The whole international system—as constructed following WWII—will be revolutionized. Not only will new players—Brazil, Russia, India and China— have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.
• The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future.
• Unprecedented economic growth, coupled with 1.5 billion more people, will put pressure on resources—particularly energy, food, and water—raising the specter of scarcities emerging as demand outstrips supply.
• The potential for conflict will increase owing partly to political turbulence in parts of the greater Middle East.

As with the earlier NIC efforts—such as Mapping The Global Future 2020—the project's primary goal is to provide US policymakers with a view of how world developments could evolve, identifying opportunities and potentially negative developments that might warrant policy action. We also hope this paper stimulates a broader discussion of value to educational and policy institutions at home and abroad.

Click here to read the full report: http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf

Click here to read what they said in 1997 what the world would look like next year:
http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_globaltrends2010.html

Click here to read what they said in 2000 what the world would look like in 2015:
http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2015.html

Click here to read what they said in 2004 what the world would look like in 2020:
http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020.html

To get the easy read, I suggest just clicking ont he Executive Summary. I think it is fascinating to see the difference that will occur between 2020 and 2025. I hope you enjoy the read.

One thing I try to do is to post true information on my blog rather than post political tabloids. This is a very valuable and informative article from arguably one of the most influential men in the world. It is his letter to President Elect Obama. I think it would be worth your time to read.

MEMORANDUM TO: The president-elect
RE: Foreign policy
FROM: Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations

There are only two and a half months—76 days, to be precise— between Election Day and your Inauguration, and you will need every one of them to get ready for the world you will inherit. This is not the world you've been discussing on the trail for the last year or more: campaigning and governing could hardly be more different. The former is necessarily done in bold strokes and, to be honest, often approaches caricature. All candidates resist specifying priorities or trade-offs lest they forfeit precious support. You won, but at a price, as some of the things you said were better left unsaid. Even more important, the campaign did not prepare the public for the hard times to come.

There will be days when you will wonder why you worked so hard to get this job. What will make it so difficult is not just all that awaits, but the constraints that will limit what you can actually do. When George W. Bush became president nearly eight years ago the world was largely at peace, the U.S. military was largely at rest, oil was $23 a barrel, the economy was growing at more than 3 percent, $1 was worth 116 yen, the national debt was just under $6 trillion and the federal government was running a sizable budgetary surplus. The September 11 attacks, for all they cost us as a nation, increased the world's willingness to cooperate with us. You, by contrast, will inherit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tired and stretched armed forces, a global struggle with terrorism, oil that has ranged as high as $150 a barrel, a weaker dollar (now worth 95 yen), substantial anti-American sentiment, a federal budget deficit that could reach $1 trillion in your first year, a ballooning national debt of some $10 trillion and a global economic slowdown that will increase instability in numerous countries.

You will take office two decades after the end of the cold war. What some dubbed the unipolar moment is history. Economic, political and military power is held by many hands, not all of which belong to states, not all of which are benign. This does not mean the United States is weak. To the contrary, this country is still the single most powerful entity in the world. But the United States cannot dominate, much less dictate, and expect that others will follow. There are limits to U.S. resources; at the same time the country has serious vulnerabilities. Enron, Abu Ghraib, Katrina and the financial crisis have taken their toll: America's ability to tell others what to do, or to persuade them through example, is much diminished.

Against this backdrop, you will face specific challenges. Many are to be found in the greater Middle East, the part of the world where every president beginning with Jimmy Carter has stubbed his toe. Consider Iraq, the issue that most dominated the foreign policy of Bush. There will be ample time for historians to sort out the wisdom (or lack thereof) of embarking on this costly war of choice. The priorities now are to gradually reduce U.S. force presence, back the integration of Iraq's Sunni minority into national institutions, persuade Arab states to help the government and resume a dialogue with Iran on Iraq's future. The good news is that many of the arrows in Iraq are finally pointing in the right direction and it will not dominate your presidency. The bad news is that you know you are in for a rough ride when Iraq is the good news.

The arrows are pointing in the opposite direction in Afghanistan. The Taliban is gaining ground; security is deteriorating; drugs and corruption are rampant. More U.S. and NATO troops are needed, but any increase will need to be temporary, given rising Afghan nationalism. The chief priority should be training Afghanistan's Army and police. Regular talks are needed with those with a stake in the country's future, including Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Russia and NATO. The government should be encouraged to meet with Taliban leaders willing to accept a ceasefire. Counterdrug efforts, while essential, should be targeted and low-key, lest an alienated populace grow more so.

It may be better to view Afghanistan and Pakistan as one problem, since Pakistan provides sanctuary for the Taliban. Pakistan's government appears unable or unwilling to control its own territory. The country's return to democracy is at best incomplete and fragile; its economy has slowed. The world's second-most-populous Muslim nation—home to 170 million people, several dozen nuclear weapons and many of the world's terrorists, including Al Qaeda—is failing. Promised assistance should continue to flow; additional economic and military aid should be provided to bolster the government, but only if Islamabad accepts conditions on its use. Military incursions targeting terrorists need to be limited to those instances where there is a high likelihood of accomplishing something truly substantial.

Iran constitutes another challenge where the campaign generated more heat than light. If Tehran continues its current progress in enriching uranium, early on in your presidency you will be presented with the choice of attacking Iran (or greenlighting an Israeli attack) or living with a nuclear Iran. Yogi Berra said that when you approach a fork in the road, take it. I respectfully disagree. Neither option is attractive. A military strike may buy some time, but it won't solve the problem. It will, however, lead to Iranian retaliation against U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and much higher oil prices—the last thing the world needs, given the financial crisis. An Iran with nuclear weapons or the capacity to produce them quickly would place the Middle East on a hair trigger and lead several Arab states to embark on nuclear programs of their own.

I would suggest that we work with the Europeans, Russia and China to cobble together a new diplomatic package to present to the Iranians. Ideally, Iran would be persuaded to give up its independent enrichment capability or, if it refused, to consider accepting clear limits on enrichment and intrusive inspections so that the threat is clearly bounded. We should be prepared to have face-to-face talks with the Iranians, without preconditions. In general, it is wiser to see negotiations not as a reward but as a tool of national security.

It will be important, too, to ratchet up diplomacy vis-à-vis the Israelis and Palestinians. The current impasse threatens Israel's future as a secure, democratic, prosperous and Jewish state. It breeds radicalism among Palestinians and throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, and is a major source of anti-Americanism. What is more, time is working against us: physical and political developments will only make it harder to achieve a two-state solution.

We cannot solve this problem quickly—those Palestinians who are willing to compromise for peace are too weak, and those who are strong are not willing to compromise—but we can bolster Palestinian moderates who, over time, could be partners for Israel. Sooner rather than later you should be prepared to articulate your vision of a fair and stable peace, press Israel to stop settlement activity and push Arab governments and the European Union to do more to raise Palestinian living standards. Hamas should be told that abiding by a ceasefire is a must if it is to participate in any Palestinian election or diplomatic effort.

A New Strategic Framework


Other challenges are equally urgent: contending with a nuclear North Korea; working to moderate a resentful and resurgent Russia; brokering peace between Israel and Syria; and taking steps to stabilize those African countries beset by civil strife. But at the same time, it's important not to lose sight of the fundamentals. Unlike most previous eras, in which the dominant threat was posed by a great-power rival, ours is the era of globalization, in which flows of just about anything—from people, dollars and drugs to arms, greenhouse gases and viruses—move across borders in great volume and with great velocity. Many of these flows represent real threats. The problem is that global arrangements have not kept pace.

The economic institutions created in the wake of World War II (the IMF in particular) require updating. We similarly lack machinery for dealing with climate change, energy security, the spread of nuclear materials, disease and the threat of terrorism. Dean Acheson, Harry Truman's secretary of state, immodestly but accurately titled his memoir "Present at the Creation." Your goal should be no less ambitious: to design and implement a foreign policy that closes the gap between this era's major challenges and the international architecture and rules meant to manage them.

America cannot do this by itself; the challenges of this era have no single national origin and no national solution. Multilateralism is the only realistic way ahead. The operative term is "integration." We need to bring other major powers into the design and operation of the world—before the century is overwhelmed by the forces globalization has unleashed. This will require sustained consultations followed by sustained negotiations. (This poses no problem, as our diplomats are much less stretched than our soldiers.) It will also require American leadership. There is a real opportunity to make progress: many of today's powers understand that they will either cooperate with one another or pay a steep price.


People Matter


There will be time to do detailed interagency reviews of policies toward these and other challenges. Let me make a few general recommendations. First, people matter. Very little about history is inevitable. You have talked about a bipartisan administration, and should make this happen. The next four years promise to be difficult, and you do not want to try to lead the country with narrow majorities.

One of these people deserves special mention. The vice president should be your counselor, a minister without portfolio, and not a cabinet secretary with a specific set of responsibilities. You need someone with an administration-wide perspective who can tell you what you need to hear, even if it isn't always what you want to hear. The one person around you (other than your spouse) you cannot fire is best placed to do this. That said, you should reduce the size and role of the VP's staff. The interagency process is sufficiently sclerotic without adding yet another national-security bureaucracy to the mix.

Avoid big reorganizations. The last two—Homeland Security and the intelligence community—have been less than total successes. Your inbox is sufficiently daunting without the added strain of reorganization; it is rarely a good idea to remodel the operating room when the patient is on the table. The one exception may be energy policy, which has never received the attention it merits. Energy policy is national-security policy.

Facing Up to Facts

On my ride into work on Thursday I was listening to an NPR interview between Renee Montagne and Governor Pawlenty regarding the state of the Republican Party. I think we would all agree that they were totally squashed a few weeks ago - and rightfully so. The Republican Party has failed to stand for many of its most basic values including limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and traditional moral values. I think they have failed in each of those in a number of state or federal issues over the past eight years. The Nation has been disappointed. 

Ever wonder how our current financial system was developed? Without going back into the 18th Century, our current global model was mostly designed in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference. This past weekend there was another similar Summit held. In preparation for that meeting the BBC posted the following article by Steve Schifferes:

The issue of abortion is generally fought by two camps: Right to Life and Woman's Right to Choose. They both have convincing arguments and at the bar of the Supreme Court the Woman's Right to Choose won. However, the other side wasn't Right to Life - it was largely State's Rights. You almost never hear that side anymore as far as abortion is concerned. The Right to Life argument never fully saw its day in court as far as Roe v Wade is concerned. With the exception of a little discussion about if the Texas law in question defined an unborn child as alive or not, the argument was founded on State's Rights and that it should be left to the states to decide matters of abortion. There was no evidence of the unborn child being alive presented. There was no talk about the right of life. There was talk about though about state's rights. Most people don't know that. That is why I thought I would put this on here for you to read.  The first time I listened to this case I was stunned at how weak the argument was against abortion. You probably will think so too. 

A good friend posted this on his site: http://www.rightsidepolitics.com/ - I thought it was a good perspective and hopefully one that will be listened to.

Monday, November 10, 2008

By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

BALTIMORE -- Addressing the Catholic bishops of the U.S, their president, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, said Americans must rejoice that society has changed enough to elect a black president, but he also drew parallels between a long overturned Supreme Court ruling that upheld slavery and the Supreme Court decisions upholding the right to legal abortion.

"The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can legally be killed as choice," he said to lengthy applause from nearly 300 bishops at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting in Baltimore.

"If the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that African Americans were other people's property and somehow less than persons were still settled, constitutional law, Mr. Obama would not be president of the United States. Today, as was the case 150 years ago, common ground cannot be found by destroying the common good."

In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a slave who had lived for a long time with his master in the free state of Illinois, could not be declared free after his master died. Seven of the nine justices ruled that no slave or descendant of a slave could ever be a U.S. citizen.

Found at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08315/926879-100.stm on November 13, 2008.

Let us always remember though those cases of rape and incest - those were not a matter of their choice, but rather the evil and malignant choices of another. Also, when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, there should be an understanding about her life too. But with that said and that understanding of when an abortion could make moral sense based on the prayerfull decisions of those involved, that for all other cases of abortion - "The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can legally be killed as choice." That is powerfully stated.

As a Latter-Day Saint, I believe that "governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man (D&C 134:1)." This scripture has helped shape my attitudes toward and my involvement in our government.

Governments Were Instituted of God

There is so much that is critically important about this declaration. It means that I don't believe that governments are the invention of man, but in fact, that God instituted them. Let me state up front that I don't believe that God's hand has been in the founding of all governments, but I do know that His hand has been in ours. His governments of old were Patriarchal through the great patriarchs such as Adam, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. God governed through these men. Why? For the benefit of man. Later, we have record in the scriptures that God set up a government of judges with Moses at the head. These men were chosen by Moses who was chosen by God. Certainly God whispered to Moses which judges He had chosen. God once again governed through these men. Why? For the benefit of man. Later the people wanted a king to be like the other nations of the world. Who was it that chose the king? It was God through His servants the prophets. It was God who chose Saul and then David - anointing David and his line to be the kings of Israel forever and that the King of Kings would one day come through that line. The prophesies say that the Government would rest upon His shoulder. It was God who again ruled through those kings - when they were righteous. Why? For the benefit of man.

Regarding our own country, Benjamin Franklin stated during the Constitutional Convention: “God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

He also stated, “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”

Also, Alexander Hamilton said after the Constitutional Convention, "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."

These few examples illustrate scripturally how governments were in fact instituted by God in the beginning, as well as these quotes from our founders, how God still to this day is working to institute governments among men. Why? For the benefit of man.

Is it logical to say that God, who instituted our government, should have no place within it? Quite the contrary. It also means that since our government is by the people, that God has a place in our lives. Why? For the benefit of man. Our laws which are written by our representatives then should be laws that are in line with God's laws.

I believe that we are children of heavenly parents who love us and who desire to bless us and for us to be happy in this life. I therefore then have faith that their laws and guidance are principles that will make our lives better.

For the Benefit of Man

This also is a very powerful statement. We have to remember that "For the benefit of man" is from God's perspective. As one who knows that God lives, I have faith that what He asks of us is always for our ultimate good. I have known that in my life and know that my life will be a test of this very belief.

From His perspective, what is "for the good of man?" It is:

1. For His children to learn to Love Him with all of their heart, might mind and strength
2. To love their neighbor as themselves

Why? Because our purpose in this life has everything to do with the next. Also, that we might have an abundant life and be happy.

Our laws and government then should help facilitate these aims rather than hinder them.

John adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." He also stated on June 21, 1776 "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."

The principles of government are inseparably connected then with God's laws and when they are not the people suffer, freedom is abolished and society falls. This has been the sad experience of all governments that have removed God from the very governments He instituted and from their own lives. Thus will be our sad experience also if we do the same.

Conclusion

Knowing where our governments come from and why they are here can help us clearly discern between right and wrong as far as our laws and our relationship to the government are concerned. The laws of man should never conflict with the laws of God. Rather, the laws of man should always be in harmony with the laws of God.

Also, the true separation of church and state is not the alienation of God from government but rather keeping the state from establishing an official state religion - thus prohibiting the free exercise of other religious beliefs. We need to be a moral and a religious people. Standing up for those beliefs is not cramming them down another person's throat - but is just that - standing up for them and saying, "This is right and this is what I believe in." We have a right to do that. We have an obligation to that. Those who believe in God have not just been advised of that. We are under covenant to do that very thing and to wield the sword of justice in defense of truth and virtue - not the opposite. We have been commanded to be a light on a hill. If we fail to stand up for what is right and allow the laws of our land to become corrupted and changed according to the immoral, unjust or wrong choices of others, we will have - through our own blindness - caused the downfall of our nation. We also will have, through our own blindness, caused the eternal suffering of countless of God's children. By failing to take the side of God's law, we will have defeated the whole purpose of government as it will no longer be for the benefit of man.

It is not just good, it is not just important - it is critically vital that we who know and believe in God to let our light so shine before men that they, seeing our light, may be led to glorify God. Our children depend on it. Our nation depends on it. Our world depends on it. They depend on it - even those who want it some other way - even if they don't know it.

On the eve of this grand election, there is much talk about which candidate will win. However, there isn't much talk about how we the people will win. How can we win? First, we have to know what we are fighting for. We are fighting for freedom, for liberty, for rescuing the individual dignity and worth inherent in all mankind. In essence, we are fighting for the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. By "we" I mean all Americans of all parties.

As I view the current situation of our nation, relative to what we are fighting for, I must confess that even for the optimist in me, I see a great dilemma. I see that we are losing this fight. Why?

The evidence is clear. Why is it clear? Because Government is being called upon by the people of our nation to do more for our citizenry. They are having to step in and make regulations for Unions, for safety, for hours you can work in a week, for the minimum amount of money you can be paid per hour, to provide you food when you don't have any, give you money when you are out of luck, help you find a job, fund life saving research, provide you with protected time off to have a child or to get better from a debilitating illness, say that its illegal to sexually harass people at work, make guidelines for executive compensation and on, and on, and on. These kinds of laws and government involvement don't come as preemptive measures against some unknown problem yet to happen, but they come as the result of the abuse and inhumanity of mankind towards their brothers and sisters. And this is why we are losing. The Democrats didn't cause this. The Republicans didn't cause this. Individuals caused this. Those parties reacted.

I look at many of the aims of the Democratic Party as essentially well meaning and many of them are trying to help each other. The problem however is that they can never fix the problem these regulations and state mandated programs are seeking to fix. You can not enhance life by not protecting it. You cannot enhance freedom by taking it away. You cannot enhance personal liberty by creating an all-powerful state. You cannot enhance the pursuit of happiness by taking away the pursuit. And that is exactly what we have done and are doing by redistributing wealth, taking from those who have and giving it to those who have not earned it, removing the moral conscious of our people, and promising to be everything to everyone. Because of that, we are losing the fight and rather than have a stronger nation as a result of all of these "progressive" policies, we have a nation on the verge of moral, emotional, physical and financial bankruptcy.

We are losing the fight because the love of man has waxed cold. Our people have turned to material wealth and away from the wealth that matters: family, friends, and relationships. We are losing because our people are turning to self indulgence rather than self sacrifice. We are losing because people are turning to reliance on the state and not reliance on self. We are losing because our people are watching too many movies about super heroes and love instead of being heros and loving. We are losing because our people are turning to a world of no consequences for their actions rather than acting with conscience. We are losing because our people have chosen to live their lives on credit because they can't distinguish their wants from their needs. We are losing our fight because we have become ashamed of God. Instead, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

How can we win this war when it seems to be so far gone? The way is not to be found in the political process or in the parties. The way to win this fight is through the same means that caused it - the individual. If you and I seek out the two great commandments: to love God with all we are and have and to love our neighbors as ourselves, we will win this fight. I know that love is the way. The fruits of that will be a turing to the wealth that matters and will begin to raise up a good, productive generation that reverences God and respects their fellow man. It will be a society of caring for each other through sacrificing for others first. It will be a society of heros and family. It will be a society of choice and accountability with conscience. It will be a society based on true wealth. It will be a society that truly can say, "In God we Trust."

That's the America I believe in. God bless us to be that country. When we are, then we have won - all of us.

I received some feedback from a good friend of mine. This is what he said:

"I think rather than initiating a 4th branch, that the other three branches should just get out of the way of economic management. Its not their job to manage the economy. It's their job to make sure people are honest and don't commit fraud. Simple policing."

I agree very much that it is not their job to manage the economy. However, regardless of whether we think it is their job, they have made it their job and will forever make it their job under the current setup. The sad reality of our world is that the government is and will be involved. The Great Depression changed that forever. Nobody wants to be known as the next Herbert Hoover and politicians have put themselves up as the economic saviors of the world. Not only have they put themselves up as that, that is what the people expect of them. The number one issue on voter's minds is the economy. It is political suicide to not acknowledge that.

Here are some articles that show my point:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/news/economy/election_issue_poll/index.htm
http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2007/12/economy-number-one-issue.shtml

I agree that the ideal role of government is to stay out of the economy and to let the chips fall where they may. However, our economically uneducated politicians can't afford to take that approach. They have to answer their constituent's requests and we can't blame them. Because our people have turned to their government for economic salvation, the government should be altered to meet that need and it should be altered in a manner that economically intelligent and educated persons are able to be placed in the situation to make those recommendations and decisions. Many economists would vote to not have this much government involvement in the economy.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/02
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977460238
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
By taking this approach, those who know the economy best would choose to meddle the least. Therefore, the only way to get government truly out of the economy, is to get the government more involved by placing within it the people who know best and are capable of actually making sound economic policies. That cannot be done, in my opinion, in the current system. Therefore, a change of some kind has to happen.

Again, as I see it we have two choices: move ever closer to a dictatorial Executive Branch due to our representative's inability to act forcing our constitution to be null and void or amend our constitution so that we can act - by the people and for the people - for the good of America and for the good of all mankind.

"Let us include in our Constitution for its revision at stated periods. And it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." Thomas Jefferson 1816

Not only should we be grateful for the government our founders gave us, but we should continue their work.

All great architects first envision before they draft. So was it with the great architects of our nation - they envisioned and then drafted. None of them however envisioned what is happening today. What would Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Washington say about our world as it is today with globalization, technology, the media, terrorism and the lust for power among the nation's elite? They would say that designing a government for this world would require that they remain true to their core principles of liberty and creative with the design of the government.

They changed the government according to their world and left a way for us to do the same. It is my belief that all of them would be mortified to know that we have been so slow to adapt our government to our changing world. Among many other things, they would be amazed to see the ultra sensitive Legislative & Executive branches of government - whose many members are almost entirely uneducated on economics and totally un-insulated from the media and the winds of public opinion - drafting the largest economic reform bills in the world's history. They would say it is time we use that seldom used but powerful tool called the "amendment" to revise our constitution.

Keeping in line with their thoughts on the balance of powers, the principles of liberty and the proper role of government, here is what I propose:

An Executive Branch with limited authority as per the Constitution currently.

A Legislative Branch made up of two houses - House and Senate. The Legislative Branch would have all of the same powers they possess now with the exception of regulating Interstate Commerce and overseeing financial policies.

A Judicial Branch made up of two houses called the Administrative Branch and the Judiciary. The Judiciary would be constructed as it is currently. The Administrative Branch would include all of the administrative services such as Social Security, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Department of Transportation, etc. All administrative agencies that also have an appendant administrative court to enforce their guidelines would be included in this branch. The heads of these agencies would be appointed by the Executive and ratified by the Legislative Branch.

A new, fourth branch called the Economic & Commerce Branch made up of two houses: a House & Senate. The house would be elected directly by the people. The Senate would be made up of the several state Treasurers which are elected directly by the people and the Vice President as the President of the Senate.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve would report to this branch of government rather than the legislative branch.


I am amazed to see the most complicated issues of our time being debated by people who are up for re-election in a few weeks and who have very little true knowledge on what is best for our society - economically speaking. It is essentially Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson running the country as congress can only add minor modifications to their proposals due to their lack of knowledge. Paulson and Bernanke are incredibly intelligent but they need help and our current system is not capable of helping them. The legislative branch is too ignorant to give proper oversight and too ignorant to add value on economic policy. It is time that changed. Electing economists to our current legislative branch would cripple our country in all of its other important areas such as national defense, social and domestic policy as well as foreign policy. Creating a fourth branch of government designed for this purpose would attract the best and brightest in the area of economics. Through that collection of bright minds we would see our country evolve and grow in areas never touched and once again lead the world in this revolution of self government.

We have two choices: move ever closer to a dictatorial Executive Branch due to our representative's inability to act forcing our constitution to be null and void or amend our constitution so that we can act - by the people and for the people.

Our founders started the revolution. It didn't end though with their passing. That revolution - the belief in self government and that by self government the people would be better served - started in the hearts of all true Americans and has spread to us today. Just the same as they cast off their government not once, but twice (the Monarchy and the Articles of Confederation) - so too would they urge us to amend our constitution so that our crippled nation can heal itself and move very capably forward into the future.

Not only should we be grateful for the government our founders gave us, but we should continue their work. I urge you to consider this proposal. If you don't like my proposal - that is fine - but somehow our government needs a renovation.

I feel this is a valuable videa to show the effects that legalizing same sex marriage can have on our families. Other people's decisions about their lifestyle is their business and I respect that, but it is not their business to make it mine.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1352578267/bctid1784521903

Please take the four minutes to watch and learn.

I read this on npr.org tonight. It was very enlightening. Bottom line, Iran has some important points but a leader who is incapable of making the Iranian case and is steering them in the wrong direction. That's my opinion.


Morning Edition, September 23, 2008 · Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to criticize the U.S. during an address this week to the United Nations General Assembly. But in an interview with NPR, Ahmadinejad disputed that was his intention — up to a point.

Speaking to Steve Inskeep through an interpreter, Ahmadinejad said, "We do not have confrontations with anyone. The U.S. administration interferes, and we defend ourselves."

Ahmadinejad said that diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States should continue to open up, citing a willingness to cooperate to uphold security in Iraq.

Asked what steps might help ease those relations, Ahmadinejad said, "We've never entered the United States and caused problems for the people here, but the American government has done that to us. So, our first proposal is that the government has to stop doing that."

The Full Interview With President Ahmadinejad

NPR: I'll get right to an important point: Is confrontation with the United States in Iran's national interest?


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: We do not have confrontations with anyone. The U.S. administration interferes, and we defend ourselves.

NPR: Clearly, there's more than one viewpoint on that. There are efforts to get Iran to change its policies on nuclear fuel enrichment, for example. Why is that not a confrontation?

Ahmadinejad: It is us who doesn't seek confrontation. But, as I explained it. It's the U.S. administration that interferes regarding the rights of the Iranian people and we defend ourselves.

NPR: Is there nothing about Iran's actions or rhetoric which can be seen as defiant and defying people in the world with whom you disagree?

Ahmadinejad: And who exactly are you referring to when you say the international community?

NPR: When I speak of the international community, I would speak of the United States; I would speak of European nations that have urged Iran to change its nuclear policies. I would speak of Russia, which has made proposals; I would speak of China, which has been involved. I could go on for quite some time.

Ahmadinejad: What right do they have to make such demands on us? Based on what legal system or what international regulation and law? Exactly where do they find the legal basis to demand such things from our people? Whilst they are enjoying nuclear energy, they are telling us not to?

NPR: You raise an interesting point. You have argued that Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium. Many countries in the world are concerned that Iran's real purpose is seeking a nuclear weapon. You have denied this. You have said this is not your intent; people are not persuaded. What can you do? What can you offer to convince the world that your purposes are, in fact, solely peaceful?

Ahmadinejad: Well, first of all, the people of the world, the majority actually, support our stand. One hundred eighteen member states of NAM have declared their commitment to our program and supported it. The Non-Aligned Movement. And 57 member states of the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, too have supported our position.
Eight countries of the G-8 group have actually supported us. As well as the 15 countries of the Group of 15.

So, clearly, the people and the governments are supporting us. You are speaking of only three or four countries, led by the United States and with a couple of their European friends, and we don't care about them, because they don't represent the whole world.

NPR: Let me return to my original question. Is a confrontation with the United States in Iran's national interest?

Ahmadinejad: What exactly do you mean? What is it that we should be looking for?

NPR: When there is talk of war with Iran, when comments are made about breaking hands or cutting hands if there is an attack on Iran; when there is rhetoric against Israel; when there is great concern around the world about the future of Iran and its relations with other nations in the world — that is the confrontation I'm asking about. Is such a confrontation, regardless of who's responsible, in Iran's interest? And is it in Iran's interest to actively seek to resolve it?

Ahmadinejad: We do not have any confrontation with anyone. We seek relations based on respect and justice. Let me turn the question around and ask you, exactly where is the world that you are speaking of? Again, 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement are supporting us. Fifty-seven countries of the OIC. So the world that is concerned that you refer to, who is it? Which world? Is it really the U.S. administration and its group of friends?

NPR: I've named the United States; I've named Europe; I've named Russia; I've named China.

Ahmadinejad: Why is it that the U.S. administration and two or three groups that follow it allow themselves to speak for the world? We believe that that is the root cause of the confrontation. Simply because the U.S. administration and a few number of its European allies believe that they own the world. They want to interfere in anything that goes on around the world. I'd like to ask you, is it the Iranian army that's around the territories around the country, or is it the U.S. troops that are around?

It is the U.S. troops around our borders. It is not ours around the American borders. So what exactly are they doing over there?

NPR: I think it is fair to say that there has been rhetoric on both sides. I think it is fair to say that you have spoken of wiping countries off the map, and chopping off hands. Does that rhetoric, when you speak that way — do you, in fact, play into the hands of President Bush? You give rhetoric that reinforces his case. He says you are a certain kind of leader, and you pose as that leader.

Ahmadinejad: You've asked a good question. I think that it's necessary to open up a bit regarding the relations between Iran and the United States.

You are aware that 55 years ago, the U.S. government overthrew the national government of Iran through a coup, and imposed a tyrannical dictator on our people.

For over 25 years under the dictatorship, hundreds of thousands of our people went to prison and spent time there, whilst our oil was being looted by American companies. Our people were demeaned. Our independence was harmed.

Until the Iranian people rose [in] a popular and democratic event to create the Islamic revolution.

NPR: My time is short — be assured I am aware of the history.

Ahmadinejad: You know the history, but it has to be repeated to the people who are your listeners. While America was there, we had no elections in our country. Nonetheless, when the Islamic Republic came into being, the U.S. government rose against it with all its might.

NPR: Let me ask about that.

Ahmadinejad: Several coup attempts occurred. The eight years of war between Saddam [Hussein] and our country were actually supported directly by the United States. From Day 1, our people were — sanctions were imposed on our people. So who exactly is the provocateur?

Who is the one who seeks war?

NPR: You've posed a question, you've posed a question — let me address it if I might. Because I need to — my time is short, your time is short. Please understand I mean no disrespect. Thank you, my question is this — coming back to now, history being what it has been, reality being what it is, do you feel any obligation — do you have any proposal that you can make to move the situation forward from what it is today in the real world, two countries that have been greatly opposed? Is there any small step that you can think of, to move forward?

Ahmadinejad: Well, yes. Of course, we've never entered the U.S. and caused problems for the people here, but the American government has done that to us. So our first proposal is that they have to stop doing that.

NPR: That is a proposal for them; what about for you?

Ahmadinejad: I've taken a lot of leaps forward in this respect. I sent a letter to Mr. Bush. That was a very good opening.

I even said that I am prepared to talk at the United Nations with them. We responded positively to the request made by U.S. government to extend a hand of cooperation in a joint security commission involved in upholding a security force for Iraq. So we did whatever we could. And we believe it's time for the American government to act.

NPR: Is there a concrete proposal that you can make that would convince the government that Iran can enrich uranium peacefully, and provide some kind of guarantee, whether it be monitors or some other method; does your country, does your government that you represent have any proposal that it can make that would reassure the world when it comes to uranium?

Ahmadinejad: Again, it's not the world people, it's the American government that's concerned.

NPR: I take it that's a no, you're not interested in proceeding.

Ahmadinejad: Of course we do have a proposal and that's to advance law for everyone. That the U.S. administration extend at least the equivalent of one-tenth the cooperation we have extended to the [International Atomic Energy Agency]; we believe that the IAEA itself offers the best guarantee. And we believe that the American administration itself should cease putting pressure on the people who work at the IAEA.

Now how so is it that a country that possesses tens of thousands of nuclear bombs and has in fact actually used one against another nation is imposing its will on us, and we are a country that is simply seeking peaceful nuclear energy? There are a lot of good proposals that can be offered in this area.

NPR: That can be offered, but not by you.

Ahmadinejad: In fact, I've given many, many proposals. We just think it's the policy approach of the U.S. government that's been nonresponsive and must change. It is not our proposals that are going to fix the problem. It is something else.

NPR: Let me delve into two more areas. As you know, Mr. President, you are known in much of the world, and not only in the United States, as the man who wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Are you?

Ahmadinejad: Is the problem of the U.S. government the Zionist regime? I believe the extremity to which the U.S. government has gone to extend support to the Zionist regime has caused the U.S. government problems around the world.

NPR: Do you accept the label of the man who wants to wipe Israel off the map? You're not?

Ahmadinejad: Please pay attention to the fact that there are two issues that go side by side in this discussion. The first part is the proposal we have given to resolve the problem of Palestine. For 60 years, wars and killings have been going on over there.

Every peace proposal that has been put on the table so far has failed to give results. Why? Because it neglects the rights of the Palestinian people. Our proposal has been to offer the Palestinian people a free referendum. Everyone who lives in Palestine [should be able] to participate in a referendum to decide the future and the nature of its government.

Let me create an analogy here — where exactly is the Soviet Union today? It did disappear — but exactly how? It was through the vote of its own people. So therefore in Palestine too we must allow the people, the Palestinians, to determine their own future.

And then the second side of this same issue, and I'd really like to invite you to pay attention to it. Especially you — you must, because you are always being subjected to [the] unilateral sort of information that is coming from the administration here.

Let's ask ourselves, where exactly did the Zionist regime come from? Palestine has existed historically with people who live there for thousands of years. Then at gunpoint several million of the indigenous people there were forced out of their homes and became displaced. And it didn't stop there; others were brought from elsewhere in the world to replace them. How can you accept this regime?

NPR: If you will forgive me, the time is short.

Ahmadinejad: Well, everything is related to history. Imagine, somebody comes and occupies the United States, and say it's history, don't say anything else about it.

NPR: I'm not saying don't say anything else; I'm saying our time is limited. You mentioned, Mr. President — you mentioned elections. You mentioned a referendum, which raises another question in my mind.

Iran's democracy, Iran's elections have a feature that is different from the United States, that we should explain.

In Iran, the government disqualifies many candidates, sometimes thousands of candidates, if they do not have what is considered to be the appropriate beliefs. They are not permitted to run.
Why do you not trust Iran's people to make that choice, instead of the government making it for them?

Ahmadinejad: I, in fact, believe that elections in Iran are among the freest in the world. There's at least 100 times more freedom in Iran than there is in the United States.

NPR: Why don't you trust people to vote for everybody?

Ahmadinejad: We trust people! Elections are free in Iran!

NPR: After the candidate rolls are removed.

Ahmadinejad: It's the restrictions here that exist — we have a law in Iran. According to the law, whoever possesses qualifications to become a candidate can run — for example for the presidential elections.

A clear example of the confidence we place in the people is I, myself. I didn't belong to any party. I taught at the university.

NPR: And if your supreme leader didn't want you to run, you would not run.
Ahmadinejad: No, not at all. There were seven other candidates…

NPR: Permitted.

Ahmadinejad: Eight candidates —

NPR: Who were permitted. In legislative elections, thousands were disqualified.

Ahmadinejad: From many different groups and parties. Even independents. Free assorted [indecipherable] campaigns. The national TV actually gave time to all of them equally. I was an independent candidate, without any party affiliations. Only the academics supported me. And I was voted into office. And now I'm the president. I ask you, can anyone in fact become a president without the support of either of the two parties here in the United States?

NPR: Anyone may put his name on the ballot in the United States.

Ahmadinejad: Are 300 million people here in America members of either of the two parties? No, not necessarily. People have no other choices here. You only have two choices. In Iran, at least, we have eight. Who is more free? Who has more confidence in its people?

NPR: Eight people in the political spectrum from about here to here, and I'm holding my finger an inch apart. If I may ask one more question, if I might, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: So then, you do agree there are restrictions, even farther here in the United States and elsewhere?

NPR: I do not agree. The United States — the American system has its own problems, which we may discuss in another interview. I would look forward to the discussion.

Ahmadinejad: Why do you assume that your system is better than everybody else's?

NPR: I assume nothing, Mr. President, I ask questions. And my final question is this: Many visitors to Iran have remarked on an interesting trend.

Many Iranians listen to Western music, watch Western television, read Western books if they can get them, and appear to have disassociated themselves with politics. That raises a question of whether you have lost touch with many of your people.

Ahmadinejad: In fact, I'm one of the few people, one of the people who is, at all times, among the Iranian people.

I have links with everyone in Iran. The Iranian nation is a free one. And they elect freely. It's always been the case. There are no restrictions for them. Why do you think that that's a new trend? It's the same mistake that the American government makes.

NPR: You say there are no —

Ahmadinejad: Just wait for three months, and on the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, you will see how people react on the scenes.

NPR: Haven't the police confiscated satellite dishes?

Ahmadinejad: But that's a different discussion, no! It's a law. We are not addressing the law. The law was passed as a bill when it happened. There are other issues there. Sure, there are some problems, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Again, wait for another nine months, and you'll see the vast turnover of the people in the presidential elections. Please remember that close to 98 percent of the people support the Islamic Revolution. I am in touch with people on the streets.

NPR: Do you read Western —

Ahmadinejad: There's a lot of freedom in Iran. The example is our interview with you. Can you ask your own president these questions? Can you really so freely meet with him so easily? Never.

NPR: Do you —

Ahmadinejad: You cannot freely ask questions.

NPR: Do you watch any —

Ahmadinejad: But everybody asks questions from me freely.

NPR: Do you watch any Western television programs, Mr. President?

Ahmadinejad: Yeah, like everyone else!

NPR: What programs?

Ahmadinejad: People, after all, like movies and shows...

NPR: What's something you've seen recently?

Ahmadinejad: Of course, very little, I mostly watch Iranian TV and listen to international news.

NPR: Any Western music that you listen to or books that you read?

Ahmadinejad: Sure, me too, like everyone else, but this isn't what matters. That's not how nations matter. People in Iran see everything, read everything, they don't restrict themselves to one outlet.

NPR: The Beatles? Led Zeppelin?

Ahmadinejad: And it doesn't basically put restrictions on itself. They use whatever they have! But that's the Iranian nation. And they know how to defend their own rights, too. They won't put up with force or with domination. Whoever, by whoever, please remember that.

NPR: Mr. President, thank you for taking the time today.

Ahmadinejad: Wish you luck and success. We'll try to create the same ambiance for talks with your own president here, too.

NPR:: Tashakur. Thank you.

Found on http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94887472#share on September 23, 2008.

As I sit back and think about the Republican candidate for President, I have to ask myself, "What happened?"

This is a very enlightening talk about the history of the food industry and what each of us can do to live a little better lives. I hope you watch & appreciate it.