Is Rampant Geopoliticalism a Threat to National Sovereignity?

What's REALLY in the interest of a nation-gone-Spartan, at
the behest of international geopolitics? No evidence can be traced
back to John Q. Public, unless of course, John Q. Public
became "swallowed" by the very system that, at one time,
sought to protect his interests, NOT as an uninformed and
dumbed down android (that walks in lockstep to whatever the
idiot box on top of his entertainment center propogates), but
as an active participant to the free speech discussions
happening all over the internet, keeping the intelligent
"John Q. Public" informed, as well as the supposed
"intelligensia", who author such things as "The Patriot Act".

The Patriot Act, as originally proposed:

* Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps
without judicial oversight;

* Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any
given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;

* Made it far easier for the government to monitor private
internet usage;

* Authorized "sneak and peek" warrants enabling federal
authorities to search a person's home, office, or personal
property without that person's knowledge; and

* Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records
of books read by their patrons.

Ron Paul has fought against these abuses of power for
many years. He has sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot
Act, but today the threat to our liberty and privacy is
becoming more real as the military industrial establishment
seeks to gain MASSIVE NATIONAL FINANCIAL BACKING,
while ANYONE TIED TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL
ESTABLISHMENT are fast becoming SLAVES TO THE
NATIONAL DEBT - A MIDDLE CLASS DESTRUCTOR.

If free citizens can define a particular set of ideologies
that are characteristic of the military industrial
establishment (overseas, at least), then they might include
the infrastructure that precludes an introduction to a free
market system; but these systems end up being "concrete
jungles" as the local participation(s) must provide the
incentives tailored to meet the needs of some religious
"factions". It's largely in the practice of implementation
of the scientific method that will always create
adversity without some condition that also requires
some tolerance of free speech. This kind of free speech
has to include some tolerance for the situational ethics
that must surround the replacement of a natural environment
with a man-made one, as one kind of national infrastructure
must differ from another across geographical boundaries.

True humanitarianism will also tolerate the criticisms
of how one group of influencing transnationalists are able
to influence another group, even across boundaries -
boundaries that are also maturing quite readily into
geopolitical ones. The problem becomes the centralization
of power when free speech becomes squelched
*between* and *across*, not only nationalities, but also
geographies - especially when there are natural "brute"
forces at work that will prevent intelligent communication
from taking place.

IMO, the "brute forces" that work against intelligent
communication are the forces that hamper, and not
enhance, intelligent feedback across geopolitical
boundaries. On the face of positive feedback is rampant,
extraneous materialism, that marginalizes our ability to
identify and eradicate the useless phylacteries
of materialism. These are the small maintenances that,
over time, add up to a high maintenance schedule for
things like increased taxes and spending without requisite
energy replacement technology ever being discussed
or implemented.


American

"You know you're a redneck if YOU HAUL more than UHAUL."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/