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!

Political Problems Will Always Exist

The news headlines for a few weeks have featured Iran's elections and peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Elections are a "right"in free societies. But, human rights are ignored in regimes that do not want or allow individual freedom of choice. There is a belief in Iran that the elections were rigged. Certain "kidnappings" have occurred to the ones supporting the opposition party, even though the law supports the right to voice difference. Rigged elections do not allow the "voice" to the individual or certain groups that differ in political agenda. This is not an unusual occurance, as power is hard to over-ride in these regimes, as there are no "checks and balances" as in our government.

I have become concerned recently at the large number of powerful posistions that this adminstration has "appointed" without accountability to the electorate. Is this a step to undermine our Constitutional government, as a representative republic?

This morning it was reported that Israel has offended the Palestianians with certain absolute non-negotiables, such as Israel's right to the land granted to them as a state and the right to Jerusalem. It seems that the Palestianians are forced to maintain a tribal identity, as they do not have a nation state that identifies their legitimacy. Personal identity is associated with one's nation, as well as familial culture.

I do not know the answer to this one, as there are conflicting stories about who has the right to Jerusalem and why and where boundaries should be established in maintaining borders between the two peoples. Without a country and home, the Palestianians do not have a "voice". But, terrorism and violence is not the answer or solution to resolve these tensions.

It seems that the persecuted "need" resolution of their denied identity by restitution of those who have limited their identity. This action affirms their "right to life and liberty" and their pursuit of happiness. Many countries granted that right to the Jews in granting them a nation and granting them a right to their own land. How are we to negotiate between two persecuted parties, who continue to persecute the "other"?

Rational choice has been useful in bringing about peace in many instances to conflicting countries, but generations of conflict over interests do nothing to make the way clear for "hearing" the other and compromising or negotiating. Emotions have become attached to certain "bulwarks" of conflict that make these stumbling blocks hard, if not impossible, to overcome.

The real world does not act based on compassion, goodness, and understanding, but on interests. Interests are not "right or wrong", just different. Justice is bringing about a equal hearing and coming to terms with the ultimate issue concerning conflict. Therefore, it behooves all of us to be aware of what our interests are and base our negotiation on what we are willing and unwilling to compromise.

Discrimination, Liberty, and Value

What is the highest value when it comes to a culture?
I just read on 'First Things" that there was a distinction made between the values of equality and liberty. Where Europe prioritizes equality, the United States values liberty. Which value should be prioritized?

If one prioritizes equality, then, how is there anyway to 'police" that value? Wouldn't government be a form of inequality, as those in power posiition would determine who was or wasn't discriminating and on what basis (law/rule) that would be determined. Society cannot function apart from government, therefore, equality cannot be prioritized.

If liberty is prioritized, then, would there be equality, because those in government would be implementing laws that would gurantee freedom under law. As long as an individual respected law, then there would be liberty to pursue their own ends. Therefore, good government must prioritize liberty, so that justice can be upheld. There is not justice without liberty.

There has been much talk about Obama being a socialist. I don't know whether he is really commtted to the ideology of socialism, so much as against discrimination and inequality. If you listen to the pastor whose ministry he listened to for over 20 years, then one begins to understand that he wants to make sure that those who have been discriminated against will get their just due. He is for globalization on a wide scale, so that America, as an imperialistic nation, will not implement their culture on another. He is against faith based institutions because he believes in universal education, as well as universal healthcare. He wants government to implement OT law, so that individual liberty is limited to moral responsibilty. This is just short of Shairia law.

I hope that those who care enough about the benefits of living in a free society will take seriously what is at stake in this election and not "toy" with the idea of a Utopian "promise for tomorrow"!