News About Immigration, and" Hate Speech"

Today, I read the following article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_hate_speech


I think the suggestion to require citizenship classes for immigrants that they have to pay for, might limit those who are not serious about assimilation or for other more important reasons (religious) might not want to submit to our form of government. Wouldn't this limit the possibility of radicals intruding into our culture and undermining our laws?
 
Europe has started to change concerning their "tolerance policy". But, what is considered as "Facist"? Authoritarianism was the bane of our liberal and tolerant society. Americans do not believe that absolutism, when it concerns faith claims, can be made. This is what has polarized  our culture wars and undermined our civility. We cannot "see" because of our emotional reactions to what we deem as "evil". We must come to understand what we "see" is, after all, a value system and we must cease to fear those that think or believe differently than we do.. And if we want to protect our liberties, we must embrace ordered liberty as the height of our value system. The problem will be in winning the war about what should be legislated to order our society.

Revolution Should Not Be Our Stance

Our government is the highest form of government, I believe, because it leaves room for "the human". Other governments have agendas or ideologies that are placed before "the human". This is why I believe that revolution should not be the stance toward our government. We have laws and representatives that we can appeal to. And we have laws that protect our right to express our opinion, voice our concerns, and assemble with others to represent our "voice".

Revolutionaries revolutionize whenever "the human" is disregarded, disrespected, or dismissed. "The human" is when liberty rules over the people and the "rule of law' protects such liberty. Today, we have many problems because we don't appreciate why our Founding Fathers formed the government like they did. The balance of power was to protect against abuses of power. And the judiary branch was to remain independent from influence, while the legislature was to represent the various "powers" that represent "the people"; the individual, the State and the Federal. Diversity in unity was an important value for our nation.

Today, our government is being challenged by minorities that think their rights come before "the people". The "rights" movement represent such groups as the Black Panthers, who want "justice" for past injustices. But, how are we or can we pay for what we didn't see at the time? Slavery was an accepted norm. And norms form society and maintain society's order. Women have not sought reparation for past discrimination or injustice!

Immigrants were always welcome on our shores and the "Statute of Liberty" stands at Ellis Island to represent those that found the United States as their land of freedom. But, today, those that infilterate our borders are disrespecting our country and its "rule of law". Those that work may be little more slaves, themselves. But, what of those that infillterate our country bringing in disease, drugs, fire-arms and wrong motivations? Don't those in leadership have a duty to protect the citizens from those that would bring our country harm? Illegal immigrants are little more than revolutionaries when they disrespect our Constitution.

The "Tea Parties" have been labelled as revolutionary, because of their identification with the Boston Tea Party. But, are these truly revolutionaries? Are citizens that ask their government to be accountable to its people revolutionary? Doesn't our "Bill of Rights" grant us the freedom of assembly? The problem, I believe, is in limiting freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech should not be limited unless it can be proven that it is "hate speech", which means that violent actions are intended. Such speech calls others to action in such a way that would bring about social chaos. Martin Luther King never used his "civil rights revolution" in such a way. He was a peaceful revolutionary. He called for dissent, but not violence. He called for resistance, but not revolution.

Our country is going through some serious difficulties presently and we, "the people" should be supportive of respecting our Constituional government. We should do everything we can to petition, dissent, speak out, and participate in our government, so that we, "the people" will not become, we, "the government"!

The New Racists and The Not So New Agenda

Power is how people gain position, and control over others. But, power was not absolute in American government, as power was to be balanced. There are checks and balances that were to prevent grabs for power. But, people have devious ways to influence others through use of emotion, and sway their opinion, move their action and grab the power from them deviously. Such are the "New Racists".

This morning I was listening to a program where a man called in and insisted that the new immigration legislation is motivated by racism. When questioned about how he came to that conclusion, he said that it was obviously based on the white power that asserted control over those of "color". Isn't that racism? This man's conclusion and thinking were based solely on race, not on the value of the argument of citizen rights versus human rights.

Racism is a strong identifier, as one cannot help what ethnic identity they are born. But, civil rights has been useful for the left to assert minority issues for any human rights issue.

I believe that the historical context of the civil right movement was in its abuse of power over a segment of our own society. Our constitution granted liberties to their citizens and citizens were defined by locale of birth. Those that came to our shores as immigrants had certain requirements to become citizens. Even to have the right to work, an immigrant must get a green card. America identified itself by those who were by birth or legal means "one of us".

But, today, it is assumed that anyone who desires to reside in this country deserves that right. And if by chance one of these is of color, then there is no limit to the outrage and outcry of "injustice" based on "racial equality". And yet, it has little to do with racial equality, but with being a part of our nation, under the "rule of law".

Racism is the means of a "new agenda", the globlists agenda, that will undermine our nation's Sovereignty and undermine citizen rights. Do not be surprised when those that come to your door asking for papers, do so not to prove American citizenship, but a "World Citizen", who really has no rights, because we will live under the "New Aristocracy".

The Question of Inclusion

There are many issues that touch upon the issue of Inclusion; immigration, terrorism, gay rights, and "difference", in general.

Today I visited my hairdresser who had just come back from representing the Episcopol Church as a deputy. He had been informing me of the discussion facing the larger Anglican community concerning "gay rights" and today, informed me that the American Episcopal Church was to be separated partially from the larger Anglican community. Why? The issue concerning "sexual orientation" was of uptmost concern. This particular gay bishop had served faithfully for, I believe, 26 years was a main focus of 'discussion'. This saddens me, as I believe that one can be a person of integrity and be ostercized due to a "protocol", "interpretation", and "difference". This bishop had not been disorderly in his conduct, had served, and loved his church, and yet, is suffering under the judgments of Church he has served.

This is one reason why I believe that our country is so great. While we have had hot debate over immigration policy and all of it has still not been resolved, we do not allow terrorists to intimidate us in maintaining our identity. We are a people who are ruled by law. Public opinion may sway representatives, but let one person "take it to court" and the law will prevail. This is how it should be.

But, some would question whether the judicial branch should be so active in forming our government's society. These believe that progression must be balanced with "tradition", or we will dissolve the very basis of our society and become uncivilized in our pursuit of litigation.

Life consists of conflict. And conflict must be resolved in a way that hears all valid opinions and voices, so that our representative government will truly be representative. This was the basis of Affirmative Action and minority rights, although some believe that these rights have been taken too far.

On the radio today, I heard that the "inclusive healthcare plan", all 1000 or so pages, was read by a jounalist from the Washington Post. She revealed that Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel would be heading up the "new" beauracracy overseeing healthcare. Dr. Emmanual is Ron Emmanuel's brother. Where did the laws against "nepotism" go? As I have said before, universal healthcare under the guise of inclusion, will bring an inclusivity to a "new aristocracy" that will govern us all in overseeing our decisions and limiting our choices. Inclusion is a relative term, in this sense.

I don't know about you, but it seems that our culture is ridden with all kinds of questions, values, and opinions, that do not bring any resolution only difference and disassociation. Disassociation from those that differ from oneself in a free society like ours, dissolves our country's unity. Our unity is in our freedom of diversity, so we should celebrate it, and not be so dogmatically opinionated about our view that we cannot understand another American, who values freedom just like we do.

Do We Have a Right to Exist?

Much has been promoted in the media about "social justice", humanitarian aid, and "moral concern" for those without opportunity. Although these are ideals that most people assent to, is it practical? The real world must define itself. And definitions are not inclusive, as diversity limits one's ability to exclude. Without boundaries, no individual, group, or nation can exist. Therefore, definition is important.

Social justice has been suggested for "all people" or humanity at large. But, while liberalism promotes inclusion, it limits the boundary of definition and dissolves difference, which practical policy issues demand.

One of the major areas of policy facing our nation for the last decade has been the issue of immigration. Should immigrants have the same advantages that a citizen does, in the name of "human rights"? Where does a sovereign nation deserve the right to discriminate in making policy decision based on the best interest of the nation? And where do national interests, such as national security trump expediency, outcome and limitations to resources for our own people? And where does national security trump "human rights"?

These are not easy questions to resolve, in light of our nation's ideals and beliefs about natural rights.

It seems obvious if we give healthcare to those who have not shown a desire to "bear the burden" of our countrie's interests by becoming a citizen and learning the language, then we, the people, bear the burden alone. And we are dooming ourselves to subvert our cultural interests of freedom.

While in Europe, the European Parliament held elections. The Dutch, who are known to be the most tolerant of all countries, voted Gert Wilders into office. He respresented the "Freedom Party" which promotes Dutch national interests. As a whole, all European nations were swinging back to conservative policies, at a time when globalism is trying to 'win the day'.

Gert Wilders has spoken out aggressively against the immigration of those whose culture is undermining his own. In fact, he was invited and dis-invited to the British Parliment to present his film concerning Islam. Our country invited him to present his film before Congress, which I hope has made an impact and impression about the costs of tolerance.

Last year, my husband and I went to a science and religion conference in Madrid. The conference was on Choice, Free Will, and Tolerance. How does a culture that adheres to diversity (tolerant) allow choice and free will to the intolerant?

Policy demands answers and solutions to real problems. Policy problems do not solve themselves. We must address these issues theoretically and practically, if we want our nation's interests to survive an onslaught of exclusive religious claims! Otherwise, we WON'T have a right to exist!

Friends, Foes and Fables

Today's "First Things" entry was about 'God on Trial". The usual questions about suffering, innocence, and a personal Almighty God. How men can bear anything as long as they believe that there is "purpose".

This article is really written to Christians, because it assumes that the person still believes that there is 1.)original sin 2.)the Jews were God's chosen people 3.)God has a purpose in suffering...he acts in history, if not in the "now", then in the future 4.) and that God spoke in/through texts. Such assumptions do not speak to the agnostic or atheistic rationalist, because it appeals to faith.

Suffering happens as a consequence of others choices that impinge upon our life as well as, just "life" itself. There are no reasons for some things. Friends do not bring suffering into their friend's life, but seek to bless and identify with it. Scripture says that Jesus calls us "no longer servants" but friends. Friends bear with you and are there for you in suffering. Friends do not seek to "test" you, as "First Things" claimed that God does. Friends remove obstacles in your way and help lift your burdens.

Foes, on the other hand, judge you as "a Jew", or other derogatory labels. While labels serve to help us understand where an individual "commits" or how an individual "understands", it should not be used to describe individuals, themselves. Individuals may identify with a group, but are much more than the group. Prejuidice is blindness to the commonality of humanity's "needs".

Fables, or myths, help groups to define themselves, or help the group to maintain certain values that are meaningful. These myths are not true in the historical sense, necessarily, but help give vision to a people. Myths can "grow up" around a historical figure, which is what transpired around the historical Jesus, Buddha, or the Pope or any other authority .

The ideals that America stands for: equality, liberty, justice for all people, are values that include every people group. We believe in the individual and the individual's right to choose his own way of life. American values "ideally" respect all people and their "way of life". American history has not realized the "all" in its history, but has grown in its embrace of all. But, the quandary lies in "traditional cultures", where the individual is not valued, but only the 'tradition". The individual only exists as the tradition defines him/her and conformity is mandated 'under law". These cultures are oppressive regimes under tribal 'elders" that terrorize anyone challenging its views. Not only religious or traditional cultures are challenging today, but political oppression is also a challenge to America.

We Americans have challenges today with those who would undertake to undermine our values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and it is done in the name of God or in the name of the "common good". Americans are open and somewhat naive about the world and life, because of our freedom to puruse our own lives. This very "freedom" has bred ambivalence on the part of many Americans about the larger world. Even our major news networks inform us of our own "news", while for the most part, leaving us in ignorance as to the rest of the world. While these are drawbacks to our "maturity", our values have been ones that others have jealously desired by those who do not have our freedoms. Many have come to our shores to seek the freedoms, that we so often take for granted. Our immigration policy must allow those "others" the equality, liberty, and justice that we Americans enjoy all the time. While embracing others into our country, we should not negate the need to qualify citizens in regards to loyalty to our culture's values of tolerance. Tolerance cannot embrace the intolerant, whether in religious or political ideologies. If we do, we are doing so at the demise of our society at large.