From my perspective, knowledge is the key to power. This video is incredibly insightful and I think you will find it not only enlightening but entertaining as well.

It is regarding the subject of creativity (or the lack thereof) in our education system today.

I hope you enjoy.

I read a great article by Dennis Byrne tonight on abortion. This article is not politically charged - just informative about current debate on the issue. It's full text can be found here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0826byrneaug26,0,4780984.story

I quote from that article:

"Can we just listen to ourselves? We're debating whether some babies born alive have a right to medical attention.

"How have we come to this? Can't we all agree that everyone whose heart beats, brain functions and lungs respire at birth should have a chance to live? If we're a compassionate, rational and just society, we would say, "Of course, every infant has a right to lifesaving medical attention. Even if it's not wanted."

"But an unthinkable debate is raging as a part of the presidential campaign, centering on how Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted while he was an Illinois state senator on legislation designed to protect the lives and health of all newborns. The debate over Obama's voting record has grown so arcane that we've lost sight of why this question ever came up: Some infants that survive abortion are denied medical assistance. They are left to die.

"Jill Stanek, a former nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, described in 2001 during congressional testimony how it happens: In a "live-birth abortion," doctors "do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward." Medication stimulates the cervix to open, allowing the baby to emerge, sometimes alive. "It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital, one . . . lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." Some actually are born healthy because they are aborted to preserve the "health" of the mother, or because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. At best, they are left in a "comfort room," complete with a camera (for pictures of the aborted baby) "baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, footprinting equipment and baby bracelets for mementos and a rocking chair," where they are rocked to death. "Before the comfort room was established," Stanek said, "babies were taken to the soiled utility room to die."

"Yes, there ought to be a law against this, and Congress passed one unanimously. It declares that a person is defined as "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Born alive means any human being that after "expulsion or extraction" from the mother "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, Caesarean section, or induced abortion.

"Pretty simple, right?

"Well, not really. Some people fear that this fundamental protection, ensuring to all the first of the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," is in reality a sneak attack on a woman's right to choose an abortion. To prevent this "Trojan horse," they insisted, and got, in the federal law a guarantee against construing the law to "affirm, deny or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive'. . ." This mumbo jumbo is supposed to mean that abortions can't be restricted...

"Such logic is breathtaking. It says that even after birth, a mother's right to rid herself of the baby supersedes any right that a child, now independent of the mother's body and domain, has a right to live. Where America stands on this issue truly is a measure of its sense of justice and compassion..."

This week I had some great correspondence with a very good friend of mine. We wrote back and forth regarding Monetary Policy. Below is the bulk of that correspondence. I thought you would learn from & enjoy the content:

Ezra Taft Benson in his landmark speech said, "I believe in honest money... I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the Federal Government to... use irredeemable paper money." You can read the full text of that speech here: http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/benson.htm I love that speech and agree with almost all of it. However, I do not agree with the entirety of that sentance.

Our currency is not redeemable by the government. I cannot go to the government and turn in $100 for anything other than $100 in ones, twenties, tens, fives, etc. Our currency is non-redeemable by the government but it is redeemable by purchase.

The constitution says the following:

"The Congress shall have Power . . .To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States. . ."

I believe in honest money as well but I also believe that the love of money is the root of all evil so it is hard to have anything honest as far as government and money are concerned.

Adam Smith in his landmark book on economics (published in 1776 and used by our founders) discussed the wealth of nations (hence its title). He concluded that the true wealth of the nation was not in gold, but in labor. The wealth of the nation, the true wealth isn't determined by the gold in the King's coffers but by the production, the labor, the capacity of the population to create products. The more a country produced the wealthier it truly was. If you consume more than you produce there is an imbalance of trade and it keeps the low producer poor - despite the consumption of more products. It keeps you indebted and in that sense poor (although there is a mirage of wealth). This was the way of the colonial empires - conquer a nation, take their gold and make them produce for the empire and control the things that they could buy. It kept them in poverty and enriched the state. Adam Smith saw great problems with that model. The only way to increase the wealth of the nation was to increase the money in the King's coffers. That would lead to wars, death, suffering and a lack of production - the king got richer while the people got poorer.

If Smith was correct, that the true wealth of a nation is the labor, why not create the monetary system based on that? Why not back it up by the people of the nation rather than by gold? If people work harder the gold doesn't come any easier. As a matter of fact, as people work harder and the people grow & multiply, the money supply gets proportionately smaller & smaller. Wages don't rise - they fall (unless Congress inflates the value of the money) because there is a smaller and smaller amount of gold to go around. It is kind of like a loaf of bread, if I have a family of 5 at the dinner table, we all can get a few slices of bread at dinner. If I have a family of 50, we all get scraps. If I have a family of 200,000,000, most don't even get crumbs. Many people suffer in that kind of a system. Bread you can produce more of, gold you can't. You can also eat bread. You can't eat gold. Our money is like bread. If we can cook it, we will. And if we do, we will eat it.

The problem is if we cook more money than we had the capacity to cook. For example, if productivity rose by 3% in the first quarter, but we created 50% more money than that, then the money is inflated. There is so much bread out there that it isn't worth that much any more. Who needs 50% more bread than they can eat? We have to wait until it goes bad, then start cooking some more. If we only produced 2% then the value is actually deflated. The bread is actually worth more because there is less to go around. Even though it is worth more, what you get doesn't satisfy. When we create too much of a product, and inventories rise, we have inflation and then a recession.

I think a money system built truly on labor is the only honest money out there. The problem is, men are not honest - especially most of our elected officials. They make me ashamed. Our world needs us & we have filled the halls of congress it seems almost entirely with the most uncooperative group of self serving people in the whole country. How can we trust them to coin money? It is probably best as is - However, we need to amend the constitution to allow for it.

Monetary policy today could use some tweaks. One major one that I see would be that we could create a means to only increase the money supply proportionality to labor with exceptions to be approved by congress. This would truly tie the "coinage" of money forever to the wealth of the nation - labor and the people.

Our founders did coin paper money - but it was all redeemable. I do believe that we have learned from the founders and that over the course of 230 years that we have learned some things and that maybe there are better ways to do things than our founders originally wrote into the constitution. For example, we recognize the ability of every citizen to vote. We recognize the right of every citizen to own property. We recognize the right of every citizen to make a contract. We recognize the right of life perhaps more than did our founders. We recognize the equality of all mankind in employment law. All of these are advances that I think they would hail, but at the time did not see possible for the country. At the same time, our founders did understand more than our leaders do today about the appropriate definition of the separation of church and state. They understood more about the true meaning of limited government. They understood our federal system. They understood the need for checks and balances. Jefferson also understood that the nation would grow and change and learn and actually recommended a new constitutional convention every 20 years. They understood the brilliance and the dynamic nature of man and the miraculous providence of God.

I, like you, am greatly concerned about "socialism." However, I don't necessarily view our current government intervention as socialism. I worry that it is not socialism at all - I view it as pure government favors to big businesses that are crafted in a manner that is intended to look like it benefits the people. Politicians rarely get elected because of their good will towards the voter. I sound pretty cynical don't I? I don't mean to be - I just see too much of this perhaps to feel good about it any more. For example, government controlled health care - who does it really enrich? It enriches the insurance providers (imagine that, government mandated customers!) and the health care industry (imagine that - unlimited customers now!). Government bailouts of Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac - who does it really benefit? It really benefits the businesses. And it also benefits the politicians because they can say they did this for the people and then get re-elected. That is what is alarming. Socialism in its truest sense wasn't about that - it was about truly protecting the people from this kind of mess - but at the expense of the other freedoms - life & property - which is where Socialism's true evil came in. Communism attacked those plus liberty. This has strayed far from that. I think this is under the guise of socialism but is in fact something else. I worry about it too. How long can the people afford this kind of reckless management of the country? Time will tell.

Thanks for Reading.

I am writing as an American who believes in our nation and our role in the world. I actually believe that we do have a role in the world by virtue of where we have placed ourselves. We have grown in such a way that has created alliances, treaties and agreements with foreign nations that has formed an interdependence - but with America at the center of the wheel. We are the true leader of the alliances, treaties and agreements with these foreign nations.

I do also believe that America is the standard for freedom and a defender of our free neighbors in the world.

Since our founding we have been engaged in various wars. Wars are always tied to money and power – on at least one side if not both. Wars for that purpose are wrong and the deaths of millions are on the heads of a relatively few men who have plunged their nations into wars that those who die to fight them reap no benefit from. Their deaths bring them honor, but bring their loved ones nothing else but sorrow.

This aggression against Georgia is nothing more than classic war for money and power. The cause of the Georgian’s is one that truly seems just to me.

When is war justified?

1. War is obviously justified when we have been attacked but the war should be proportional to the attack and its intention.
2. War is justified when, in the words of Jefferson & the Continental Congress, “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
3. Acts of war are justified when there is an insurrection or a civil war from within.
4. War is justified when a just, sovereign foreign nation who was not an aggressor calls on allies for aid.
5. Acts of war are justified when there is a clear and present danger that will soon strike and bring about greater death than a war to remove the clear and present danger.

When is war not justified?

War is not justified when it is waged for resources, power, or money. Neither is it justified when the aggressor begins it for a reason other than those stated above including to come to the aid of another nation. If they did not officially through their government request the aid, then we must respect their sovereignty and stay out.

It is my belief that America has no interests in other nations that it must proactively protect. Our interests are here and the preservation of true freedom loving allies. If they have interests and are invaded or threatened, and officially request our aid, then we have the right to respond. We may choose not to but we have the right to assist. US businesses may have interests in foreign nations, but America, our government, our people collectively have none and should never be sent to die for “American interests abroad.” We are willing however to die, as we have for centuries now, for our own and other people’s freedom and liberty.

I am shocked at Russia’s aggression towards our ally – Georgia. I am also shocked at our lack of action. Here we are at day four of a conflict that is reshaping the world even as we speak and we have no plan and have said nothing other than we are “concerned” and that Russia’s actions threaten their global position.

All of that was a preface to this: If Georgia officially calls through their democratically elected government for American or other free nation’s aid, we should be willing to answer that call. Would it be easy? No, it would possibly be the greatest struggle in history – fighting the war in Iraq, fighting the War in Afghanistan, fighting the War on Terror, and fighting back Russia from the small nation of Georgia and keeping Russia from once again rising to its unlawful stature as a force to be reckoned with. Freedom is the force to be reckoned with and we need to stand by it.

Ken Coman

Islamic militancy continues to grow globally with a 25% increase in the number of attacks between 2006 and 2007. This is a tremendous threat to global peace and stability as well as the lives of everyone in the middle east. This militancy is a threat of the greatest kind to freedom.

Pakistan is really at the core of the middle eastern problems. All of the Middle East's rogue nuclear programs - including North Korea's - came from Pakistan. The Taliban was trained by Pakistan. Islamic Militancy began there. Osama Bin Laden is believed to live there. Perhaps it can begin to end there if allowed to and its end spread to the rest of the region. We can only hope. I wish you all the best in your efforts to bring about a better tomorrow.