The recent judgement that Obama's healthcare plan is unconstitutional is in appeal. But, that doesn't seem to matter to those that seem to be committed to a "higher law" or "greater purpose", and that is underming State authority.
It seems to me that power grabs by centralization was NOT what was in mind of our origninal government strucuturing! The State was to be Sovereign in their own affairs. But, if the adminstration holds the States accountable to this healthcare initiative, it may just bankrupt the States. Would the Federal government step in to "fix the problem", by centralizing power? It would be a devious move and determined poiticians to attain more centralization of power and our GNP.
On the other issue that is bombarding America is the issue of teacher's and unions! Unionization is also a way to centralize government through the board of education, instead of the State being responsible, the Nation would be responsible. Would educational institutions be forced to conform to a national standardization of education? Again the minds of the young will be in the hands of the few.
Granted that sometimes standards are necessary to ensure that basice are taught and undestood in our nation. It is in the nation's interests that the population be educated.
But, will there be an attempt to unify across the boundaries of the nation-state? Would this be the first step to a "global governance" and "World Citizenship"? How and who will determine what kind of govenrment and what laws will be implemented. Hopefully, fundamentalists will not gain enough popularity to gain a foothold that would deter agreement as to globalized standards. Can gloablization be in the best intersts of the inidivual? I don't think so, because as government increases in size the more beaucratic regulation must be created to maintain "social order" and structure.
Will such a globalized govenrment have a balance of power? Will there be a world-wide election? Or will we be tehcnically, practically, or symbolically under a dictator?
The balance of power and structuring in our government was a delicate one. I don't think that such structuring would be an easy one for the globe. And really, I don't think that the purpose of our government is really what is desired, i.e. balance of power.
Hopefully, that last bastion of liberty, i.e. America will not be destroyed before we can have another election, so "the people" can protect their rights, as well, as their nation's.
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Friday, February 18, 2011
Friday, July 10, 2009
Justified By Science to Dis-Criminate
I have been following the debate over the energy proposal that passed the House by a short margin and now is to be heard in the Senate. This energy bill would be a financial burden on American families, increasing taxes and limiting resources. It is supposed that there would be another federal agency that would investigate the energy effieciency of a home before it can be sold. Windows, doors, furnaces, appliances, etc. would all be checked to meet federal regulations. Why? Because science says it is best that we limit ourselves for the whole of mankind.
While I agree that limits are necessary in every area of life, one must ask the question why this is to be one of the few scientific "values" that drive public policy....Poverty, and education are others. Whenever a particular scientific view drives policy, we limit the American experiment, because of government's need to control these "suggested" abuses.
It was discussed today on a radio program that there might be federal regulation of smoking in the military, and there has been discussion of regulating our resturants. Why? healthcare costs.
The globalist believes that American is an imperialist country, because they defend their ideology abroad, instead of being tolerant of cultural differences. I find that multiculturalism doesn't want to protect individual liberties so much as protect group identifications. This is what is driving the controversy in the newly nominated Supreme Court Judge, who is Hispanic.
She want to protect individual rights, at the expense of business interests. While obviously, I do not believe in discrimination, one has to question when to discriminate. Where do we draw the lines? All of mankind cannot live under a one world government unless we want to give over our freedom to a regulated and monitored beauracracy. The balance of power will be the "lowest common denominator", as Third World countries compete in a globalized market that is filled with coveting and greed. Many African nations have been known to have corrupt business practices and prey on the uninformed.
Nationalism and national interests are dismissed as narrow-minded, and narrowly focused. Those who believe in our country's ideals should given up their citizenship to a globalized citzenship. This is the paradigm change from modernity to post-modernity.
While there is value to post-modern understanding, it should not drive policy, otherwise it will dissolve national interests, and defense for the 'common good".
There are valid disagreements about global warming among scientiist, but those who are politically connected are the ones that are heard. And just as every other group, scientist live in a culturally driven paradigm of materialistic naturalism in a postmodern context.
Just today there was an article in the Washington Times about the EPA official who had buried critical evidence against global warming.
Anyone who has worked in the federal government undrstands that it is easy to set up busniesses, protect special interests, and use federal programs to "milk" the American people of hard- earned money in the name of public good, while privately useing it for cronies, etc. Beauraucracies are too big to be accountable and unaccountability is a primary cause of corruption. The press cannot even be privy to certain information.
America is the freest nation on earth, but will not remain so, if science continues to do the dirty work of political correctness. Most Americans will just accept whatever science deems is a necessary "evil", because most are ill-informed as to the limitations of science. We do live in paradigmic understandings about the world and life. We must protect our own "world" as Americans to remain free.
While I agree that limits are necessary in every area of life, one must ask the question why this is to be one of the few scientific "values" that drive public policy....Poverty, and education are others. Whenever a particular scientific view drives policy, we limit the American experiment, because of government's need to control these "suggested" abuses.
It was discussed today on a radio program that there might be federal regulation of smoking in the military, and there has been discussion of regulating our resturants. Why? healthcare costs.
The globalist believes that American is an imperialist country, because they defend their ideology abroad, instead of being tolerant of cultural differences. I find that multiculturalism doesn't want to protect individual liberties so much as protect group identifications. This is what is driving the controversy in the newly nominated Supreme Court Judge, who is Hispanic.
She want to protect individual rights, at the expense of business interests. While obviously, I do not believe in discrimination, one has to question when to discriminate. Where do we draw the lines? All of mankind cannot live under a one world government unless we want to give over our freedom to a regulated and monitored beauracracy. The balance of power will be the "lowest common denominator", as Third World countries compete in a globalized market that is filled with coveting and greed. Many African nations have been known to have corrupt business practices and prey on the uninformed.
Nationalism and national interests are dismissed as narrow-minded, and narrowly focused. Those who believe in our country's ideals should given up their citizenship to a globalized citzenship. This is the paradigm change from modernity to post-modernity.
While there is value to post-modern understanding, it should not drive policy, otherwise it will dissolve national interests, and defense for the 'common good".
There are valid disagreements about global warming among scientiist, but those who are politically connected are the ones that are heard. And just as every other group, scientist live in a culturally driven paradigm of materialistic naturalism in a postmodern context.
Just today there was an article in the Washington Times about the EPA official who had buried critical evidence against global warming.
Anyone who has worked in the federal government undrstands that it is easy to set up busniesses, protect special interests, and use federal programs to "milk" the American people of hard- earned money in the name of public good, while privately useing it for cronies, etc. Beauraucracies are too big to be accountable and unaccountability is a primary cause of corruption. The press cannot even be privy to certain information.
America is the freest nation on earth, but will not remain so, if science continues to do the dirty work of political correctness. Most Americans will just accept whatever science deems is a necessary "evil", because most are ill-informed as to the limitations of science. We do live in paradigmic understandings about the world and life. We must protect our own "world" as Americans to remain free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
