Author: Ken Coman
•10:29 AM
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.
Author: Ken Coman
•2:14 PM

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

Speaking of energy, the current situation is untenable. We are channeling vast numbers of dollars to some of the world's most unsavory governments, strengthening them while leaving ourselves vulnerable to supply interruptions and price fluctuations.

Prices have come down recently as demand has dropped off, but recession cannot become our energy policy. Substantial research demonstrates that we can reduce consumption without slowing economic growth. Your campaign didn't talk much about conservation or efficiency, but the greatest potential for making a difference over the next four years is just this. I am talking not about carbon taxes but rather the setting of energy standards for what this country produces and does. We can offer tax breaks and subsidies as long as they are linked to greater efficiency and "greenness." We should devote resources to the development of alternatives, although resources will be in short supply and developing alternatives will take time.

Trade is also worth talking about now, even though it was hardly mentioned after the Ohio primary. By the time you take office it will have been 19 months since the president enjoyed trade promotion authority, which gives him the ability to negotiate complex multilateral trade agreements by limiting Congress to a straight up-or-down vote. Several bilateral free-trade agreements are languishing at considerable cost to our economy and to our relationship with friends such as Colombia.

It will be important to resurrect your ability to negotiate and conclude trade pacts. A new global trade agreement offers the best noninflationary, anti-recession tool for the American and global economies. Estimates are that a new global agreement could add as much as 1 percent growth each year to the U.S. and world economies. Trade brings an added benefit: it is an engine of development for poor countries. Access to the American market can provide jobs and wealth. This will be especially important given that we are unlikely to have as much money for foreign aid.


I'd like to think the arguments in favor of open trade would carry the day, because on the merits they do. The most successful sector of our economy right now consists of firms that export. Imports give consumers choice and keep inflation low. Job losses tend to be tied to technological change, not imports or offshoring. But I've learned that facts are only part of the story in politics. The only way you are likely to win a debate on trade is if you do more to cushion individual workers from the vagaries of modern global life. This means tax-deferred retraining and education accounts, and a health-care option not linked to jobs. So if you are going to press for health care, I suggest you link it to trade.

Trade is not the only area where America needs to make sure we stay open for business. We must encourage others to continue to recycle their dollars here—in part by buying and investing in American companies. We require $2 billion a day just to stay afloat. Blocking legitimate investments can also trigger crises in important bilateral relationships. Such protectionism must be resisted at all costs.

You ran hard against Bush in this campaign, and understandably so, given his historically low approval ratings. But you should be wary of distancing yourself too far from his administration. This is especially important because Bush already distanced himself from himself in his second term. Remarkably, he leaves behind a good deal you can build on: programs to combat HIV/AIDS around the world, diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, a strategic breakthrough with India, important consultative arrangements with China and a good relationship with Brazil, increasingly the anchor of a centrist bloc of South American countries.

One area, however, where you would be wise to put some distance between yourself and "43" involves democracy. America does not have the ability to transform the world. Nor do we have the luxury. We need to focus more on what countries do than on what they are. This is not an argument for ignoring human rights or setting aside our interest in promoting democracy. But we should go slow and focus on building its prerequisites—the checks and balances of civil society and constitutionalism—and not rush elections or impose political change through force. Bush was right when he called for a humble foreign policy. You should practice what he preached.

Let me close where I began. This is a sobering moment in American history. You begin with a good deal of popular support, but mandates must be replenished. I suggest you think of the Oval Office as a classroom, and explain to the American people what we need to accomplish and what it will require. Some 21st-century version of the fireside chat is called for. My reading of things is that the American people are ready to be leveled with. Once the campaign is over, let the leveling begin.

© 2008

Found on November 24, 2008 at http://www.cfr.org/publication/17620/
Author: Ken Coman
•7:51 PM
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. 

Nevertheless, one of those things that makes Republicans stay with the Republican Party is its professed belief in the traditional moral values of America. With that said, Renee asked the Governor, "And do you think Republicans should continue to focus so much on values issues like abortion and gay marriage since - especially now - and presumably in future years, when voters care so much about... economics?"

I was stunned.  Did she really say that? Did she really ask if we should care so much about values when so many people care more about money? She did. The Governor did a great job responding. You can listen to it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96945322

My answer is yes, we should still care. I care and I will never sell my values for "economics." I hope you don't either. 
Author: Ken Coman
•11:19 AM
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 Mount Washington Hotel was the scene of the monetary conference. In the summer of 1944, delegates from 44 countries met in the midst of World War II to reshape the world's international financial system.

The location of the meeting - in the plush Mount Washington Hotel in rural Bretton Woods, New Hampshire - was designed to ensure that the delegates would have no distractions, and no pressure from lobbyists or Congressmen, as they worked on their plans for post-war reconstruction.

The meeting was born out of the determination by US President Franklin D Roosevelt and UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill to ensure post-war prosperity through economic co-operation, avoiding the economic conflicts between countries in the 1930s that they believed contributed to the drift to war.

"We have had to perform at one and the same time the tasks appropriate to the economist, to the financier, to the politician, to the journalist, to the propagandist, to the lawyer, to the statesman-even, I think, to the prophet and to the soothsayer" John Maynard Keynes

The principal negotiators at the meeting were the US, represented by the US Treasury's Harry Dexter White, and the UK's John Maynard Keynes, who was serving as UK Treasury adviser despite declining health.

And chairing the proceedings was Henry Morgenthau, the US Treasury Secretary, from the only country that was likely to emerge from the war with a strengthened economy.
President Roosevelt told the conference: "The economic health of every country is a proper matter of concern to all its neighbours, near and distant."

Fixed exchange rates

The meeting was part of the process led by the US to create a new international world order based on the rule of law, which also led to the creation of the United Nations and the strengthening of other international organisations.

The delegates focused on two key issues: how to establish a stable system of exchange rates, and how to pay for rebuilding the war-damaged economies of Europe.

And they established two international organisations to deal with these problems.
The International Monetary Fund was set up to enforce a set of fixed exchange rates that were linked to the dollar.

Countries in balance of payments difficulties could receive short-term help from the IMF to avoid devaluation, and it could sanction changes in exchange rates when necessary.

The World Bank (officially the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) was set up to make long-term loans "facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, including the restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war [and] the reconversion of productive facilities to peacetime needs".

Post-war prosperity

A third organisation, the International Trade Organisation, designed to encourage free trade, was still-born when the US refused to ratify its charter in 1947 - although tariff reductions were pursued through the Gatt treaty later.

However, more ambitious proposals from the UK's John Maynard Keynes to set up a world central bank which could issue its own currency (which he called bancor) were rejected by the US.

Keynes hoped a new bank could help reflate the world economy by expanding the money supply.
He also wanted the cost of adjustment shared between countries with trade surpluses and deficits, so that countries with big surpluses would have to revalue their currencies, as well as deficit countries being forced to devalue.

Instead, the Bretton Woods system gave the US currency - which was linked to gold - the dominant position in the world economy and allowed the US to run a trade deficit without having to devalue.

And the US, which contributed the most money to both institutions, also gained the most voting rights, giving it a veto over major policy decisions.

Marshall Plan

The establishment of a rules-based system of international finance helped restore confidence in the world economy and led to an extraordinary boom in the post-war years.

The US also helped the European recovery by contributing additional funds through the Marshall Plan when the World Bank's efforts proved inadequate.

World trade among developed countries grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, boosting world output and raising the standard of living, especially in Europe and Japan.

The US, still by far the richest country in the world, was happy to provide export markets for its allies, and sent dollars abroad through military and civilian aid which helped lubricate the wheels of commerce.

Meanwhile, the focus of the World Bank gradually shifted to helping developing countries with the establishment of its special low-interest loan arm, IDA.

Breakdown of Bretton Woods

However, by the 1970s, the US currency was under pressure from a combination of factors, including the cost of the Vietnam war and the growing trade deficit.

In 1971, the US under President Nixon unilaterally went off the gold standard and devalued the dollar, a move ratified by the Smithsonian Agreement later that year.

This led to the abandonment of fixed exchange rates and the introduction of floating rates, where the value of all the main currencies was determined by market trading.

Attempts to forge a new Bretton Woods agreement on currencies in the 1970s failed, although the IMF still retained its role of helping countries cope with major currency crises - including Britain in 1976.

The breakdown of Bretton Woods had two consequences.

On the one hand, it led European countries to begin seriously considering closer monetary co-operation, which ultimately led to the creation of the euro in 1999.

And it led to the creation of the G7, the informal group of the world's leading economies, which helped to coordinate currency adjustment in the Plaza and Louvre Accords in the 1980s.
Financial globalisation

On the other hand, the end of the Bretton Woods system unleashed two decades of financial globalisation, encouraged by the deregulation not just of currency markets, but also of rules about banking and investment.

This led to increased flows of private money to rich and poor countries alike, which helped boost growth but also created greater instability.

The rapid reversal of such private sector flows when currencies were threatened with devaluation was the central cause of the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98, which spread to Russia and eventually Argentina.

The resources of the IMF proved inadequate to compensate for the run on their currencies, and the adjustment proved painful, with sharp falls in GDP.

Since then, many Asian countries, including China, have accumulated large currency reserves to insulate themselves against future crises, avoiding the need to call on the IMF.
New global rules

The latest world financial crisis, which has hit the richest countries hardest, has renewed calls for a new global framework of financial regulation.

But the task this time will be far more complex, with the proliferation of financial instruments and the fact that there is no longer one country that dominates the world economy in the way the US did after World War II.

And the political impetus for co-operation is less compelling today than it was in 1944, after a decade of war and depression.

Any new agreement would have to recognise the power of the rising economies, such as China and India, and reshape the institutions created more than half a century ago.
Such changes are not likely to be either quick or easy.

Author: Ken Coman
•11:02 AM
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. 

I encourage you to take the time to read the transcript and to become informed on how abortion became the law of the land. I hope the Right to Life argument will see its day in court. The right to liberty can never trump the right to life - as far as the government's role of protecting rights is concerned. 

You can read and listen to it here:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/argument/

Author: Ken Coman
•10:42 AM

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.
Author: Ken Coman
•7:15 PM
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.
Author: Ken Coman
•7:28 PM
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.