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.

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.

Albert Camus suggested that it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

What does this mean? Let's think about it.

First off, I will define "executioner" as not only the one who deprives someone of their life, but also deprives them of their property or liberty. I am not sure how Camus defined it, but that is how I define it.

During the American Revolution, why was there all of this talk about natural rights, rule of law, due process, and liberty and justice for all? It was because of the threat of injustice, the threat of total disregard for life, liberty and happiness, and the total assumption of power as judge, juror and executioner by certain people in power including the King of England. In truth, all mankind was in danger of some kind without the protection of the rights enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

However, even with these rights stated in our founding document, there have been times when even we as a country, as a people, have not followed them and have been on the side of the executioners. Do you believe that or do you believe that everything ever done in the name of America has been because it was the right thing to do?

One obvious time when we have been on the side of the executioner was the western expansion of our country. Although the 20th century saw the creation of the term genocide, it certainly was not the first time it occurred. Previously is was called the Manifest Destiny. Regardless of the romantic picture we have of the old west, it was a time of great atrocities on both sides resulting in the complete defeat of the Native American people. America and/or many of its citizens stole their lands, confiscated their property, killed literally hundreds of thousands of their people, and took the survivors from the forests and brought them to the western deserts.

You would have thought that it would have ended there - in a less civil time. It is also not my intent to judge our past by today's standards - only today's actions by today's understanding.

Such action however did not end in a time gone by and people today are not much different than they were before. Such is the case with all wars, with all crimes, with all aggression - trying to take that which is not ours - in times past, times present and times surely to come. We still want more and will still do almost anything to get what we want unless we are guided by principles and held in check by the great laws of our land.

It appears as though Barrick gold, now a multi-billion dollar speculator (as opposed to the small gold speculators of yester-year), wishes to continue the base behavior that was an injustice to so many millions from the preceding centuries and take away the land of the Shoshone people in a quest for gold today. This is a case of a multi-national company taking the land from a small Indian tribe for their own interest and the government supporting them in their action. This is not right. You can read more here:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-06-01.asp

http://www.sacredland.org/endangered_sites_pages/mt_tenabo.html

http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/Barrick_final_sml.pdf

These are our brothers and sisters - we need them more than we need gold. What side should we be on? The side of the right - in all cases - and the right is not always in a suit and tie, in a robe sitting on a court bench, or an innocent person with a job. The right is that moral compass that always points true - within our hearts. The right is the golden rule which the Master uttered, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them."

Do we truly believe in liberty and Justice for all? I know I do. I hope you do as well. Please write your Representatives in Congress and inform them of this injustice. For a link to find your representative, click here.

Did you ever think that the maybe the Confederates & south, in the Civil War, weren't the rebels but that maybe the rebels were really in the North? I was sitting down tonight pondering over some excellent history that I had recently read as well as the moral groundlessness upon which slavery was built.

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, 25% of the Continental United States was made up of slaves. I do not have the figure, but there was also a large number of Indentured Servants in the colonies at that time. To be conservative, I will say it was only 8%. Combined, 0ne third of our country was in servitude to a master and had nearly no rights - even that basic right of protecting their own lives in many cases. Women were in a similar state with no right to hold property or to have a voice in their government. Out of this situation emerged for the first time a document, penned by a Representative of the People and assented to unanimously by the Continental Congress of the United States of America, alleging certain unalienable rights - those of Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.

Sadly, those rights initially were only granted to land holding white men since not even a free black or Indian could enjoy those rights. For all of the rest, the world wasn't ready for the realization of what the enjoyment of those rights for all meant and thus it was written into law - even within our own constitution when it deemed all other non-free persons to be only three-fifths of a person. At that time, this notion of the master and the servant was deeply entrenched in our culture and stemmed all the way to Jamestown & the first colonists.

However, something changed - the North. They began to move away from this notion of servant and master, oppressor and oppressed. They heard the pleas of their fellow humans and organized the abolitionist movement as well as Women’s Suffrage. The people in the North began to rebel against the old order and to form a new one founded on the principles penned and ascribed to decades earlier. They began to rebel against the old order of States Rights and the Confederation under the old Articles. They began to truly form a more perfect Union.

This change, this rebellion against the old order & the way things were, finally encroached too much on the South who were determined not to change but to keep the status quo. When the Northern rebellion against the status quo became so powerful that America elected a president from the abolitionist Republican Party – it was time to fight back and to defend that which was their own – their history, their heritage, what they viewed to be their property and their way of life.

No, the south didn’t rebel and sadly that was the problem. The North did and thank God they did so that in very deed the blessings of our more perfect union and the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness could be more fully enjoyed by more of God’s children.

I believe in freedom and in its boundaries. When another person's freedom infringes on the freedom and rights of others, they have exercised their freedom in an unjust fashion. Such an exercise becomes a crime.

Regarding the boundaries of free exercise, I would like you to consider part of the original draft of the Bill of Rights for Pennsylvania's first Constitution. In that first draft it read:

"An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."

Is that true? Does the holding of an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals create a danger and destroy the common happiness of mankind? This isn't a question you should answer with your knee jerk as you may be inclined to do.

As I look in my minds eye at the vast expanse of humanity around the world, and knowing that the majority of wealth is owned by a minority of the earth's population, and knowing that wars are generally waged over wealth (i.e., gold, land, resources) and to get more of it either because the poor don't have it or the rich want more of it, and whereas wars cause so much misery to the people involved, and knowing that the lack of opportunities afforded to so many around the world is a factor in crime, social ills, disease and death, I can see the danger and destruction that the incredibly disproportionate distribution of wealth can create.

Does therefore the endless accumulation of wealth infringe on the rights of others? It may. It may cause people to be pressed into war who have no true interest in it. It may push others into poverty. It may keep people from basic services. It may cause so many of the ills we see and hear around us and in our world.

The endless accumulation of wealth was never meant to be the American Dream as so many think it is. The American Dream was about Freedom, Liberty, Justice, & the protection of Natural Rights. Let us never forget what our country was and should be really about - Liberty & Justice for all. We as a Nation have never been perfect at that but we have gotten better as we have looked to our foundation - the principles the founders aspired to. That foundation has continued to transform the way we have built & changed our society since 1776.

May Liberty and Justice for all continue to form how we look at the true American Dream versus the fraud so that our American home, and therefore our world home, can be one of freedom, justice and protection of natural rights for all mankind. And may each one of us consider again the question "Does the holding of an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals create a danger and destroy the common happiness of mankind?" and then live and act accordingly.

Long has the Star Spangled banner waived over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Its stars shine forth in the night, giving light and guidance to the mariners on the see of adversity. It waves to them. It calls to them.

Its stripes remind us of the blood and purity of the brave and tells us with not only those stripes, but the stripes of One other, we are healed and made free.

This land, this new nation, has transformed our world in a way that no other has since the beginning of time. Our Constitution is more than just a document that preserves ours rights as Americans. It is a document that has set the standard for the preservation of human rights across the world.

No matter the stain of current politics - the principles of Freedom that shine forth as the stars of the night call and set the standard of a higher humanity for all the world to see and for all the world to be guided by. America calls to the world. It calls to loose the bonds of slavery. It calls to end the bonds of ignorance. It calls to end the false hegemony of high birth. It calls to bring all to the level of human brotherhood. It calls to the soul to worship their Divine Creator how, where and when they may. It calls to individual to reach out, to look higher, and to lift up. This is America to me. This is my County - the United States.

Thank God for this land of Liberty - for by it, all of mankind is or will be blessed by it. Freedom and human conscience create a foundation of happiness. This freedom which was established first here will go forth across all the world - not by aggression but by progression. It truly has begun a Novus Ordo Seclorum - a New Order for the Ages. Thank God for that Order.

Thank you for reading.

While on my lunch break today I was doing some investigating on what Congress had been up to yesterday and I came across this resolution called "Supporting the goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation." I had to read it just because I thought it sounded silly. You can read the resolution on the link below.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110yUqwxM::

In the resolution it references the "Millenium Development Goals." I had never heard of these goals and did a google search on them and found they are 8 goals agreed to by the countries of the UN to reduce certain social ailments that plague our world by the year 2015.

I was encouraged by the goodwill of men and women everywhere who work towards these lofty but important goals. I thought I would make you aware of them too so that you might be inspired by the good in our world that does still take place.

You can read them here:

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

God bless you in all of your good efforts as well.

Ken

Scott McClellan

I have watched several interviews – probably four or five now - with former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan regarding his new book “What Happened.”

It shouldn’t amaze any of us the level of attacks that have come against him as he has shared with the American people, who he was sworn to serve, his story and perspective on what happened in the White House during his tenure there.

I know that there are many of us who would like to not believe what he is saying. It is hard to hear someone say that our Vice President manipulated intelligence and that our President and his advisors lead a war of propaganda to convince the American people and our elected officials that there was a clear and present danger.

Tonight I watched McClellan be interviewed by Bill O'Rielly. It was unbelievable how O’Reilly spent the whole time trying to defame and discredit McClellan – calling him a person of propaganda. Here are some of the things he said:

“Your book is Propaganda.”
“I think you’re naive.”
“Surely you know how you are being used.”
“Negative spin.”
“I think you are being used by your publisher.”
“Why didn’t you stick up for the president?”

And my favorite:

“It’s not the truth it’s your opinion.”

McClellan either saw it or he didn’t. He either heard it or he didn’t. It’s not his opinion. It’s what happened. Why is it so hard for us to believe and accept? Especially when Scott McClellan isn’t the first person to say these things either.

Let’s listen and let’s do something about it. Let’s believe the hard stuff and be wiser in how we vote and in how involved we are after the election.

O’Reilly said that McClellan didn’t have the courage to do what was right. He said, “It’s a matter of courage isn’t it?”

McClellan had courage – he had the courage to know before hand what he was going to get into when he told the truth.

Is O’Reilly unbiased?

Is O’Reilly fair?

Is O’Reilly balanced?

I don’t think so.

It is a shame that he calls himself a journalist and it’s a shame that he has such a large following. We need information and to be allowed to make our own decisions and not be tricked into believing something by him or any other person.

We need facts not opinions.

I am grateful that a true patriot that is looking beyond the election and his party has had the moral courage to stand up for the facts and to share them with us – the People.

This one never gets old for me.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/congress_debates_merits_of_new

I hope you enjoyed it. Ken

At Saturday's state convention, while walking around and seeing the different candidates running for office, I met a few people who were campaigning on the agenda that, if elected, they would work toward stopping the creation of a North American Union. The North American Union they speak of would be similar to that of the European Union where the United States, Canada and Mexico would join together in a grand alliance of free trade, loosened borders, unrestricted travel, a common currency ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6638097241299092586&hl=en ) and defense strategy.

Those who talk about such a union and the government's covert plans to bring it about will often site a paper written by the council on foreign relations. I thought it would be useful for you to read this paper for yourself. You can click on the link below to read it:

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

I have read it and do not find the recommendations threatening nor do I find the concept of working closer together for our common defense and prosperity a negative thing. I always have been and always will be for the principle that the government is ours and that all things must be done by the consent of the people and that to do anything else is a violation of oath and duty. It is my hope that any discussions to bring us closer together will be through open debate and the voice of the people.

Some progress has already been made to bring about these positive changes. You can read about them on the government's website for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: http://www.spp.gov/

At the convention those who spoke out against such a union or the progress towards it spoke about conspiracies, surrender of sovereignty, surrender of our rule of law and the surrender of our voice in the government. These same arguments were used against our own Union following the revolution. I would say that generally their fears never materialized and that the Union of the United States was the greatest event that could have happened to ensure the security and prosperity of our citizens.

The more we are able to break down the barriers that separate us and to become a people of common interests, values, principles, laws and goals the better we will be able to pursue the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. God be thanked for our Union.

I have written before about Health care expenses and that one way to encourage more free market forces in the health care industry would be to eliminate the anti-trust protection afforded to the insurance industry. This was not very well accepted by our own Senator Orrin Hatch - you can read his letter to me below.

Another thought provoking idea is one created by Michael Cannon of the CATO Institute. In his paper, "Large Health Savings Accounts: A Step toward Tax Neutrality for Health Care," Cannon proposes making some changes to HSA's which would encourage more competition and therefore drive prices down to a competitive level. His proposals are as follows:

1. Increase HSA contribution limits dramatically. For illustrative purposes, assume the maximum annual contribution limits would be roughly tripled, from $2,850 to $8,000 for individuals and from $5,500 to $16,000 for families.
2. Remove the requirement that HSA holders be covered by a qualified high-deductible health plan. HSAs would be open to those covered by any type of insurance, as well as the uninsured.
3. Allow HSA holders to purchase health insurance, of any type and from any source, tax-free with HSA funds.

Cannon writes, "Restructuring the exclusion for employer-sponsored health benefits in this way would enable more individuals to obtain health insurance that matches their preferences, would increase efficiency in the health care sector, and could reduce inequities created by the exclusion. These changes also offer a means of limiting the currently unlimited tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health benefits that may be more politically feasible than past proposals. " He concludes: "Large HSAs could serve as a step toward a tax system that offers no preferred treatment to health expenditures, and thereby forces the health care sector to accomplish more with the resources devoted to it."

I personally liked his ideas and recommend that we look closer at them and invite our elected officials to look closer as well. What we need is not more government health care programs or forcing employers to purchase group insurance (which would just perpetuate and deepen the divide between the consumer and the prices) such as those being proposed by certain presidential contenders.

To read his full report, please click on the link below.

http://www.bepress.com/fhep/11/2/3/

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said this past Wednesday that "It now appears likely that real gross domestic product will not grow much, if at all, over the first half of 2008 and could even contract slightly."

I don't want to sound cruel or insensitive to those who will lose their jobs in this downturn (I lost mine last year), but I assert that a "slight" GDP contraction is not that bad (and a much better result than a government planned and ran economy). This is the result of our free market economy that we all benefit by on a daily basis. This is Adam Smith's invisible hand at work - and it works for our good. All the free world has seen an increase in wealth and comfort due to the free market forces. They have caused a loss of jobs in one area but an increase in others. In America for example, our manufacturing jobs are being sent abroad but yet we are still experiencing unheard of unemployment levels. The free market economy may hurt a little as it finds the right balance, but we all are far better off because of it.

Our economy grows when there are buyers for products and when there are too many products for the buyers the economy lags and some jobs get lost. The Federal Reserve reacts by lowering interest rates when inflation is contained; this encourages investment which causes growth and creates jobs until there are too many products on the shelves at which point the economy contracts - and thus it moves - but it always moves up.

We shouldn't be too overly concerned about "slight" GDP contraction. We should always be wise, live good lives, have our own houses in order, live within our means and trust that all will work out. It is my opinion that slight GDP contraction is made to look like the sky is falling because it is an election year and everyone wants to blame everyone else and everyone wants to have a better program for saving the economy than anyone else and look like they are doing more for it than anyone else.

Just because we all can't buy brand new everything this year doesn't mean the world is coming to an end. Let's be real: the free market forces at work will find the right balance and we will all be better off because of it.

I recently finished Alan Greenspan’s “The Age of Turbulence.” I thoroughly enjoyed and recommend it to you. The end of the book is a prediction of where America will be in the year 2030. There were several different variables such as the rule of law, property rights, terrorism, etc. One of the largest variables that he did not have the answer to was the quality of education at the primary and secondary levels in American schools.

He noted how the United States has the best Universities in the world but that our primary and secondary education levels are so poor that it will force the quality of our universities to be lowered in order to teach an ever more increasingly unprepared group of high school graduates. As this happens there will be fewer and fewer people capable of filling the higher skilled jobs pushing their wages up and there will be more and more people capable of filling the lower skilled jobs pushing those wages down thus increasing the wage gap between the wealthy and poor leading to social and economical problems that could be very costly for us.

His book was in part a request for our country to put a higher priority on education. There are certainly some critical improvements we can make in our education system that Chairman Greenspan makes and which I would endorse. However, I give it as my opinion that those changes alone will not correct the problem that he foresees.

I would like to go a step further. The real source of problems in education is not in the structure, pay, or performance of our educators. The source of the problem is the homes our children are coming from. The problem is a deterioration of the family. Here are just a few statistics to strengthen my point:

1. 35% of Children live in single parent or blended family homes (a majority of whom are living below the poverty line)

2. Parents who work full-time spend just 19 minutes every day "caring for [their] own children", according to the survey. A further 16 minutes is spent looking after their children as a "secondary activity", like when parents do grocery shopping or cook. Although this is a UK stat – I know our numbers are not much better.

3. 54% of all married couples are both employed (if all of these families have children, then half of America is being raised by daycare providers – not to mention the single parent households).

4. 37% of all births are to unmarried mothers

5. There are 5.5 million unmarried couples living together

6. Fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of homeless/runaway children, 85% of children with behavior problems, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youths in prison, well over 50% of teen mothers.

How can we ever expect to produce a better society without better homes? It’s a “no brainer” – we simply can’t do it. We may train great teachers but if the students coming into their classes are sad, troubled, depressed, rebellious, dysfunctional, irresponsible, disrespectful, law breaking, drug using, sex crazed, thrill seeking kids – the best teachers in the world will fail to prepare them for adulthood. That is the parent’s responsibility – educators only support the family in those duties only they can do. The family is the fundamental unit of society and its integrity, stability and happiness must be promoted and preserved at all costs.

What does America’s Future Depend on? It depends on you and your spouse loving each other and loving your children enough to put each other and them first. It depends on you being less selfish and more selfless. It depends on you honoring your marital vows. It depends on you abiding by moral law. It depends on you putting your family first. Your family depends on it. You depend on it. And in my opinion, America depends on it. This doesn't mean enduring physical or emotional abuse on the part of our spouse and sadly there is too much of that in our time. This does mean though doing our utmost to honor our vows until death do we part. What will the world look like in 2030? It’s up to us to decide.