Does the Nation State Have Rights?

Much has been written about "colonialism',"empire", imperialism, Statism, and the nation-state's status in general. Most of these labels have a certain view of universiality about "humanity" and rights. But, what is good about the nation-state?

The nation-state has defined boundaries, where people can create their societies within their governmental form/frame. The nation-state protects its citizens, in our free and open society by its laws. Citizens have a right to appeal, as the individual is respected in his own right.

Globalist and globalism is an agenda that pushes negative labels on America, as a nation-state. And these labels are really to impugn America's reputation so that globalists agenda can broaden their impact and appeal. And the globalists use religion just as the Statist do.

Globalism is really about commerce and trade. Trade and commerce have happened for eons of time, because people always want to promote economic progress in their own country. But, those nations that colonized other countries are viewed as arrogantly asserting their power and right over another country. And this is the height of arrogance to those that are committed to the human rights cause, or environmental causes.

These global "causes" are not the only "causes" in the world, but to those that are so committed, it seems so. Otherwise, they would not be doing what they are doing. And more power to them!

The nation-state does have interests, and these interests are not wrong, because interests help the nation to survive, as long as corporate power do not grab the reigns of power to subvert Congress' right/duty to representation.

I think the ideals of our nation-state from the Founding are ideals worth fighting for. And these ideals are individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some have tried to "sell" the centralized beauracracy as an evil in and of itself. While I will never think that beauracracy is the best way of government's functioning, I do believe that our nation has a right to exist in the midst of other nations.

Federalists argue that without the distribution of power at the State level, then we have erred according to Constitutional standards. And these think that the State should not have a standing Army or have any investment in foreign policy. These believe that the Army's ideal of liberty is used to subvert other governments, for political/economic purposes. As stated before, political and economic purposes are the life blood of the nation/state.

A similar usefulness for religion is to get people "on board" voluntarily and to agree, so agendas by leadership can be carried out with little resistance. One must wonder what principle leaders such as these adhere to. Is it the principle of power?

Tea Parties and Revolution

The "Tea Parties" are representative of our American system. We believe in our freedom to dissent, to petition our government, and to express our opinion. But, more so, we also want accountability from our represetatives.

Last night, my husband and I watched 4 hours of Russian history. I couldn't help but think that the 'peasants' who came to petition their Tzar, peacefully, only to have shots fired at them were a little like the 'tea parties". How so?

The Russian people found themselves oppressed and were wanting answers from their government. These were not using violent means, but met violence. Such is the case with our news media and how they are portraying the average citizen in our society. The "tea parties" want a peaceful way to express their anger and anxiety over the change that seems forced upon us. We are given no reasons why this is such an imperative, other than a "moral one". Is it not just as immoral to put our country's future viability at risk?

"Commoners" for the "Common Good"...

My husband told me tonight on Glenn Beck, he disclosed that the way the redistribution of wealth will occur is using the stimulus money and re-defining poverty...

The stimulus money, it is reported will be used within the White House "councils"...possibly in the charge of one of the czars...I imagine. And the definition of wealth will be what one is able to buy, versus what another is not able to buy. So consumerism will promote prosperity with equal distribution, but at what costs?

Do those that have worked hard, bought second hand cars, and saved, deserve to be punished by such a policy? Maybe I don't understand what the total picture is, but it seems to me that creating personal wealth is forbidden UNLESS, one is part of corporate greed, that is.

Do NOT get me wrong. Corporations are not wrong in and of themselves, but when they play politics with policy of the American people, then our democracy suffers. And the people are left with little recourse but to "foot the bill"!

Corporate greed will play into the hands of stimulus monies this way so that consumers consume so that they will not be punished by punitive measures to alleviate class envy. And the religious will "call on the virtue" of their parishioners to "give blood" to the cause of the "common good", while the blood-letting will go on behind the scenes. And the end will be the alleviation of the "economic" crisis through ploys of manipulating public opinion through temporary "fixes" until after the election cycle.

So, instead of workers uniting, maybe us "commoners" should unite to protect our liberty before it is sold to the highest bidder and we have to pay for it.

Moral Authorities and Economics

Moral authorities like to demand conformity without understanding personal conviction or conscience concerning complex issues. These want to demand or co-erce others to transform society into their understanding or viewpoint, hindering liberty. (They assume that to transform society, then those who view things differently must be educated into their way of thinking, limiting diversity of views and limiting the freedom of the Press).

Much has been written about disgust and purity issues. I have such disgust over those who want to demand a "one size fits all" way of thinking and being in the world.

It is to the advantage of the materially minded to suggest that others provide virtuous attitudes in their bodies, while they take control of life and limb, all the way to the bank. Such was the case with the sell of indulgences during Martin Luther's reform. The real problem of the Church was their abuse of power. Power has to be balanced in any relationship. Otherwise, there is coercion, and bondage.

Economics must be based on rational choice of the individual under contract, not some redistribution of wealth or corporate profit that disregards the 'worker'. Whenever one does not concur with a goal of an organization or the value of a company, negotiation must transpire. And there is always the choice of leaving a company because of a disregard for proper negotiating.

Moral authorities who are "idealistically" inclined mandate for the poor and needy in society without understanding that it is the free enterprise system that has made for a flourishing economy in the West. And it is the West who have given most to the poor, because of that prosperity.

Prosperity is not the 'great evil" in the world. But, it has been disparaged by the "superior" because of altruistic goals, not understanding the means of that "outcome". The means are always human beings, as human beings have to have the right to choose their own goals, and if that falls in line with another's goals of altruism and/or profit, then so be it. But, if not, that is the right of an individual in a free society to not co-operate.

Let us be done with a monistic view of life and liberty. Otherwise, we are headed for a "new aristocracy".

The Hope for America's Giving and Sacrifice

There has been much said about giving to the poor, and all of us sacrificing, as the economy is in dire straits. I have nothing against giving to the poor, but I do have much that I am in opposition to when it comes to others deciding where I or another should sacrifice. Obama' s call for all of us to sacrifice for the nation, is no less what other Presidents have called for when our nation has needed to defend itself in the time of war, or other times of economic challenges. This I have no problem with, but I do have a problem with plans that are made for the "greater good" which designates someone as the scapegoat, no matter what the cause, as I believe the principle is wrong. No one should be used for any purpose without their full knowledge and full consent. It is unethical, not to mention, unfair.

When we speak today of fairness, many have the idea of equal distribution, which I think is not a healthy or proper way of viewing life. Why? Because we all cannot hold the same office, or have the same things, or be the same person as someone else. But, it is equal opportunity that is an important value to be upheld, as all of us need a "helping hand" at times. It is when there is an attempt to determine what another's position, mission, purpose, focus, values, lifestyle, etc. should be that becomes problematic and dangerous in our free society! All of us are valued in America, at least these are our country's principles, and "ideals". And as a result, we should be and are, for the most part, gracious people to others, in spreading democracy in whatever way we can.

I think that although we have many challenges ahead of us, as a nation, I believe that our country's foundations of freedom are too ingrained for our nation to collapse. Others would disagree with me, as they fear that our values have left the "Moral Majority" and its cause(s). No, I believe that even the recent activism of atheists are because of public concern. ( I just got a message from CFI about perplexed parents desiring to train their children in a pluralistic society. I find this is a noble cause, as it brings reason to the table when discussing religion. And reason is not religion's strength!).

My hope for America and her future, is the same as any American's, "freedom and justice for all, with a continued and renewed hope for our future."....and I think Kennedy's call to all of us"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.".... This is a worthy and noble cause that all of us, as Americans, should value....

Obama's Economic Big Shots

Tonight, I heard that Obama's economic advisors were big whigs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Obama gets second to Chris Dodd and Clinton with some of the big companies that just went bankrupt. What is that all about? The taxpayer will not only have to pay for the bail-outs, but also be taxed, as Joe Biden says to "be patriotic". Of course, the promise is that the tax will only apply to the wealthy. Does that mean them? Joe Biden himself made in the double digit millions and blessed charity with 3 thousand....