Flags and I'm Either Confusing Myself or I'm On to Something

Many things that people consider patriotic in the sense of revering and honoring the concept of a free nation which honors the idea that the individual owns his own life and property may be just the opposite. Considering that the Pledge of allegiance was not put in place right off the bat, and I believe motivated toward reinforcing to new settlers what country they were in, I'm not sure its modern usage is always in concordance with the principles of a nation whose rights are granted by the people rather than visa versa. Also the "under God" phrase was not in the original pledge -- not a huge issue to me, but obviously it has been used to squander tax money in the courts.

According to flag rules the order of flags, if flown on the same pole or in a procession always place country supreme. I wonder, since the national authority is supposed to derive from the people, then the states if the order should not be reversed; city most prominent, then state, then country. In matters of international nature, then country should be first.

If one holds to the philosophy of the national authority only setting certain limits on all government within its boundaries but then having no rights to meddle in local affairs which do not step on the hard and fast rights of individuals, I wonder if the symbolism of constantly subjugating local and individual autonomy to the whim of the federal authorities has not been somewhat destructive. Destructive here meaning a contributor in the erosion of individual liberties, and the increasing burdens placed on citizens at the national level.

Many would argue that it took federal action to abolish slavery therefore leaving things to local authorities is bad. I would argue that slavery violated the spirit of the principles which were to be observed by all and that it was a big flaw from the beginning. They are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Slavery retards the development of any society and no good comes of it. In matters of public works and how taxes are spent, the least centralized control is generally the most effective while also allowing for maximum individual choice and freedom. We lost that.

I don't know, it just makes me wonder. Many of the conventions, pledges, under God mottos and such came about in the 1900's and served more as a conditioning for a national conformity reminiscent of vowing allegiance to a king. I do not believe it would have been so easy to deploy military forces to places which most of us had to look up on a map because we never heard of them, and still have questions about the real reasons for the action. The Guard was supposed to be the state militia, not something the president could order overseas when they spread the military too thin. That went out the window. I do not approve of that.

A vow to defend the Constitution is a vow to defend liberty of the citizens. That is different than the Pledge of Allegiance and makes more sense to me. I had to take that vow in my fringe military adventure. It is easier to swallow that vow because the Constitution is a document which was designed in hopes of preventing tyranny, and limiting the scope, authority and growth of the federal government. Most lawmakers have violated that oath from the mid 1800's on.

A blind pledge of allegiance discounts the duty set out in the Declaration of Independence to buck authority when it oversteps too far.

These things are what I wonder about. I'd be happy to see the people now in power get voted out, but I am highly suspicious of those who may replace them. The thing on their side is that many are not life long politicians. I would vote out all career politicians, and certainly encourage any new ones to repeal all provisions which give elected officials health care, pensions and other perks which make no sense for people claiming to sacrifice for public service.

The main worry is that in defrocking the Islamic movement for what it is, people get all wound up trying to attach religion of other sorts to politics, and that is a huge mistake. For one thing they will end up clouding their reasonable fiscal policies and attention to other substantive matters will be lost. Got to go on reason and principle which would not infringe on their ability to practice their religion. I'm afraid one side will lay down and let lunatics really make a religious problem in communities while the other will give fuel to it by reinforcing the notion of a holy war. I say you screw with rights of others you get squashed. And if you try to make mini religious states within our boundaries, with practices that violate our laws, you get nailed. Simple as that.

Anyway, I'd like to feel less under the thumb. I do hear more and more talk of repealing the 16th amendment and disbanding the IRS which is nice, and this from groups and people not generally maligned as wackos. I know Homeland security suggests anyone who touts the Constitution or suggests the IRS is bad is a terror possibility. But I consider Homeland security department to be as big a threat of domestic terror as any we have. And they have a track record of it.

Yea. Maybe we think upside down. The highest authority should be the individual, then his community, and on down the line to the national authorities. The idea being that we voluntarily grant rights to these entities, and agree to be represented in the larger bodies; city, state, etc., but only to the degree that such organization must exist. Their power is from the people, and their rights are privileges granted by us, in theory. Our rights are automatic and anything not forbidden is fair game. And there is supposed to be a big limit on what can be forbidden or demanded by government.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it at this point.

I do realize that my idea of what is right, and what I most would love to see enacted would be a system which probably goes a little beyond what we started with in this country in regard to installing severe limits on the power of government and the whim of the majority and any authorities.