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.

I believe in the power of nature. I believe that man is regulated by and abides within nature. When I say nature I do not mean necessarily things in their natural state or only those places where we go to enjoy nature, but rather I am referring to the natural balance that is found when people, animals, vegetation and systems follow the natural laws that govern them. When people, animals, vegetation and systems don't follow these laws, it is my belief that nature will force a correction that is often very painful.

For example, a certain plot of ground in nature is only capable of supporting a certain amount of plant and wildlife. Nature, or the laws that govern that plot of ground, will dictate what that amount is and will create a natural balance through the process of rain, wind, mineral content, etc. That natural balance may take time to get to but it will be found. If it gets out of balance, nature, or those laws will correct it. Consider the rain fall. The vegetation will be adapted to a certain amount of rainfall and, if the area has a low to moderate rainfall and is in an area that is susceptible to forest fires, the type of vegetation will be one that can properly come back from such a devastation.

When this natural balance is manipulated it is my opinion that the consequences are worse for both the manipulated as well as the manipulator and innocent passers by. Take for example the example of the forest and fire. When man, in an effort to minimize forest fires, fights nature by both doing controlled burns as well as prematurely extinguishing a fire, it allows the areas of nature to not enjoy the natural balance of the laws that govern that part of the land and it becomes off balance. Rather than allow the scales to balance, it is as though there is someone holding the scales themselves – keeping them just where it is best for them. There will come a time when the manipulators will no longer be able to hold the balance against nature and when the scales fall back, the fire will be many, many times greater than had they allowed nature to play its course in the first place. The Yellowstone fire is an excellent example of this.

Among man, there are also natural laws that govern us. All laws have promised benefits when followed and consequences when disobeyed. Some laws would be for example the law of agency, the law to not trespass on another's property without their permission, the law to respect the right to live, and the law governing our human interactions: that of love. When those laws are not followed there is a natural consequence. Some of those natural consequences are resistance, retaliation, death, distrust and unhappiness. These natural consequences should be allowed. No, the must be allowed. Why? Because if we don't, resistance will turn to revolution, retaliation to lawlessness, distrust to war, and unhappiness to greater disease, misery and poverty.

Corporate cover ups, presidential pardons, preemptive regime changes, manipulation of “laws”, and conspiracies to hide the truth at all levels from families to businesses to governments are not only wrong but the consequences of avoiding the natural correction of the balance is that it will be more than just them that will suffer – it is you and I, and in some cases, everyone. And when the scales can no longer be manipulated in their balance – the suffering will be greater than it ever should have been.

I may not like the movement politically of our nation, nor do I agree with the direction of so many things, but I believe that right will prevail and that in the end, nature will bring us back into proper balance. I however, wish to choose to be balanced, rather than have that balance forced upon me.

There are times when nature takes us on the wrong course, such as in cancer and its metaphorical parallels. We must use wisdom and judgement in intervening to save lives and others and to know when nature's higher laws request human intervention to bring it back on course.

It is up to you and I to not manipulate the laws and consequences. It is up to you and I to not only live according to the laws of nature, but also to accept the natural correction and to learn from our mistakes so that we can find the proper balance as individuals, families, businesses and nations. It is up to you and I told uphold the laws and to support good legislation.

As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, as to hinder the scales of nature from finding their proper balance.

Thank you for reading.

One of the most important political issues besides the economy is health care. The rate of soaring health care costs is alarming to me and to most Americans. It is my belief that competitive forces should push prices lower - not higher. Solutions are being proposed in congress as well as by most of the presidential candidates. It worries me that most of the solutions being proposed involve more government. Not only do I not see the power over health care within the bounds of the constitution, but I also disagree with government involvement and regulation in private industry. Socialism is by definition the control of private property by the community or the government. At our nations founding, we, as Americans, ascribed to the free market system rather than a socialist system. However, when the free market system is perceived to have failed us, we move towards socialism to find a solution.

It is my opinion that we the people are being told that the free market system has failed us in the health care industry. By looking at health care premiums, out of pocket maximums, deductibles, co-pays and the like, I would agree with them. However, it just doesn't seem right to me - there has to be something missing.

What if our current health care system isn't really free market? That is what I proposed to Congressman Rob Bishop and Senator Orrin Hatch. In our current US Anti-trust laws there are two industries exempted: Major League Baseball and Insurance. I believe that the protection afforded to the insurance industry could be a likely cause of our rising health care costs - simply because they are not required to compete in a fair, open market system. This protection keeps them from competing against each other and allows prices to soar - and the consumer can do nothing about it.

My letters received two entirely different responses. I got a personal phone call from my congressman who said he was in favor of creating an environment of more competition but was unaware of the protection the insurance industry enjoyed and promised to look into it. Senator Hatch on the other hand sent me the following:

"Dear Mr. Coman:

Thank you for your letter... I certainly understand your concern regarding this issue. I have heard similar concerns from Utahns regarding these matters. In addition, over the past few years, legislation has been introduced in Congress that would repeal all or part of the insurance industry's anti trust exemption.

In general, I approach antitrust issues with the priority of doing what is best for the consumers... there are (however) many arguments in favor of maintaining the insurance industry's current exemption.

Rest assured that, as the Senate continues to debate this issue, I will work to ensure that we properly balance the needs of the consumers with the needs of various businesses. While I recognize that repealing or even imposing certain limits on the current exemption might have some market benefits, I would be hesitant to support legislation that would unduly harm small insurance companies and agents, especially those in Utah...

Sincerely,

Orrin G. Hatch"

I am inclined to disagree with my Senator. I am worried that this is a short sighted approach - if we don't do the right thing, it will hurt the consumer as well as all of the insurance companies as we move to more socialized medicine due to the failure of the current system to bring us the care needed, for those who need it, at a price they can afford. It is my opinion that the free market hasn't done this to us - it is everything but the free market. Plastic surgery is a great example - it's not covered by insurance but the prices have been falling year after year while care and quality has gone up and up. The free market could get us out - we need to send in our voices and ask the government to repeal the exemption afforded the insurance industry.

Freedom is the answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Thank you again for reading.

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

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

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

I'm not convinced.

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

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

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

Here are some ways:

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

Nelson Mandela said in his 1994 inaugural speech:

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

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

Thanks for reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is so obvious it is almost unbelievable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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