April 23, 2008: I have previously written that I am a classical liberal, meaning that I strongly believe in political and economic liberty. In the practical sense, that means that I believe those liberties which this country's founders fought for against their English rulers - the liberty to be free from political and economic government restraint, with the caveat that such freedom doesn't put us into collision with the Constitution.

The government has certain basic duties, mainly to protect our borders from foreign incursion, to protect individual rights under the constitution, and to adapt those protections to conditions created by technology.

People should be free to have the religions they wish, as long as those religions do not in themselves become power units affecting the political and economic liberty of all individuals. Those liberties do not include infringing upon the political and economic liberties of those who are not interested in behaving or believing what the various religious organizations would like for all to believe. Companies should have the economic liberty to trade with whom they wish, without restraint, as long as those companies do not harm the basic liberties of our citizenry.

People speak against globalization, but globalization is here to stay. The world has been growing more compact every year, certainly helped to do so by the Internet. Western ideas have now become almost de rigueur as capitalism is now the goal of more and more countries which previously decried that economic concept, because those countries know that regardless of what they would like to believe, without strong trade, both internal and external, the prospects for a strong and secure nation are very weak.

Which brings me to Senator Clinton's Pennsylvania primary victory speech. It was interesting to hear many anti-Clinton pundits talk about how good the speech was. Now I've previously written that I'm not a fan of any of the candidates, and that I believe both Obama and Clinton are Socialists, with Obama being more of a liberal fascist than Clinton. I've also written that there are some points the liberal left make that are worthwhile enacting because they would be good for the country.

Clinton's speech was a very good one - it appeared to be nationalistically inclusive - and she gave the impression that her socialist leanings would not be Bismarkian, but would be more open - that is, not of the kind of socialism that would force everyone to worship statism, but would be open to dissent. If that's what she has in mind, that's fine, after all we are already living in a sort of "gentle fascism" state, except try denouncing environmental concerns, the greening of America, and other "hot key" issues, and you will find yourself looked upon as some kind of anti-American - just as those who denounced the Iraq incursion in its first few years were called traitors by the Bush Administration.

One topic is important, and that is Clinton's idea of medical coverage for all citizens. Notwithstanding the fact that there are a number of problems this could, and probably will, present, health care is an extremely important issue for the United States of America, if it is to regain its political and economic superiority. A society in which everyone knows their health problems will have the opportunity to be repaired will be one which can then concentrate on those other issues which will enhance lives - economic, political, and personal.

Developing a strong nationalistic society is desirable and it does not have to be in the same mode as Hitler's National Socialist Party (Nazi), nor does it have to be Fascism.

As long as individuals know they have political and economic liberty, that they do not have to worry about their health care, the peoples of this nation can unite in making us, once again, the powerful and respected world leader that the United States of America has always been.

The last item I want to mention is education. Until a better system is devised for basic schooling, it looks as though we are stuck with what we have. The important thing is for children to learn that learning is important, and this has to be a function of their parents. With so many illiterate parents around, it's no wonder than too many of the kids in our schools have no interest in learning. If the country is to regain its world respect and leadership role, aside from its citizens' health and economic opportunities, basic education is of primary importance. The ability to read and understand (comprehension), understanding world history and especially that of the United States is of utmost necessity; not the revisionist history as is being taught on many school campuses, but the learning of what actually took place in the founding of our country, and the reasons behind the wording of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and how England's political history affected that document.

The educational emphasis should be on the old "3 Rs - reading, writing and arithmetic". because once those skills are learned, the road to possible economic success is open for travel. A college education is not necessary for all, but the ability to learn new skills is. We have to understand that there are many career opportunities available for the young, and more become available every year. Making education important to elementary, middle school, and high school students is a priority task for our educators - not just the ability to pass required exams (which too many students fail).

-30-