Rep. Peter King started his radical Islamic hearings to discuss home grown Islamic terrorism. Opponents cry inequality, singling out one group, Muslim Americans, casting a pox on all for the actions of a few. Immediately, before the hearings started, opposing leftist arguments cite as many non-Muslim threats as possible drawing up reminders of the Oklahoma city bombing as if piling on more rhetoric is the answer to a balanced argument, equality or even structured arguing.
It's reminiscent of discussing the existence of God and being chided the statistics of pedophile priests. The goal of the discussion is to reach truth, which may insult your opponent if it clashes with his position, not to directly insult your opponent.
Bobby Kennedy held hearings on organized crime, not Italian Americans. As it turned out, most of the hearing detailed criminals who were Italian American. To keep consistent with his escaping a delicate issue unscathed remaining a liberal icon, King only needs to call his hearings an expose on home grown terrorism, not Muslim threats.
Morgan Freedman once said to Mike Wallace the way to get rid of racism and for this agreement, bigotry, is to simply stop talking about it. Leftists need only to ignore the issue of inequality and bigotry to make it go away.
The good news is that the US has terrorism on the run. They need to recruit local terrorists because they cannot outsource soldiers overseas. The US, in the middle of a great recession and with socialistic ideals gaining ground, still can provide a standard of living high enough to discourage the hopeless act of strapping on a bomb to kill infidels. But some, already disturbed and close to causing damage anyway, are manipulated into doing so in the name of Islam.
The numbers are low, but the threat is real is we continue the argument of inequality and bigotry. Ironically, leftists holds the key, but refuse to use it as doing so would weaken party platforms. It's not the problem that's the problem. Its the solution. Without inequality, what would we argue over?
George W. Bush vowed to destroy terrorism and dreamed of a free middle east. The recent explosion of the middle east casting off totalitarianism is a great first step toward it's destruction. Only in a world where men are promised a life of tyranny and oppression may violence grow to be crafted into a weapon used against the foes of Islam, a seed of terrorism. But this first step of freedom is not the embrace of individualism.
The question is if the middle east will pursue free will. In America, free will is the basis of Judeo-Christian faith; that God gives us the choice between good and evil. Choose well and be rewarded. Choose poorly and be punished. No one may claim your reward and no one may bear the burden of your error. God is simply there to ensure our free choice. The US government is based on that notion. Both a powerful entity which simply and only enables free choice. Like God, government does not force or mandate choice, even knowing the better of the two. Like God, if government pushes direction, freedom gives way to oppression.
Since the middle east is primarily Islamic, not Judeo-Christian, many believe free will is impossible, that Islam is a religion of oppression. Others point to Muslims living as peaceful a state as any other religious individual crying fear and bigotry. Is Islam a freedom embracing religion? Or is Islam being welded to craft the hopelessly oppressed into a weapon against the west?
The dream of George W. Bush was of a free middle east. While we can't destroy Islam or agree on whether it supports true freedom, we do agree and could destroy oppression, without which, the weapon against the west fades.
So the next question is how do we assist a free middle east? Full blown war? Covert actions of select commandos? But is this America's purpose? To police the world, enabling freedom by force? Or do we serve as a beacon of freedom through example and leadership? Could it be as simple as the leader of the free world using obviously God given powers of speech to sell freedom and free choice… what all humans innately crave? The wheels are already greased. Mankind only needs a great leader to give it a little push. A near impossible feat when our own leaders need the push to comprehend the true definition of freedom.
Wisconsin is ground zero of the union debate. States are broke and unions, drawing nice pensions and salaries during a great recession, are the target for savings. Once one broke state sees this debate, they may all follow suit, much like they are in finding Obamacare unconstitutional. Unions have agreed to one time paybacks, but the real issue is over union strongholds to prevent future financial burdens stopping the bleeding, not just putting a band aid over it.
In the private sector, the boss has finite wiggle room. Ultimately he can give only so much to union demands before he prices the business out of the market and puts both parties out of work. (Some argue we are already there with many American jobs going overseas.) But in the public sector, that firewall is non-existent. Politicians negotiate money that's not theirs. And the more they please the unions, the more re-election backing they get. When the bill comes due, they are often long out of office. The real issue is not temporary cuts, but the power a union has over politics.
Governor Scott Walker's proposed bill makes union dues voluntary, giving individual members choice where their money goes. The idea spurs calling proponents "Hitler" and that "freedom" is being taken away, for if today it's collective bargaining, what will be taken tomorrow? But the message of freedom is being perverted. The debate is less about individual rights as it is about the power it gives an individual party, for freedom cannot exist for the collective. Freedom can only serve the individual.
The protests in Egypt against President Mubarak, a strategic ally for the last 30 years in the Middle East presents a quagmire for President Obama. Should he have supported a tyrant for selfish US interests? Or does he support freedom under the fear Egypt falls to the Muslim Brotherhood. While the Brotherhood does not directly support Al-Queda, they've taken anti-West positions.
Rajab Hilal Hamida, a member of the Brotherhood in Egypt’s parliament, has said of the 911 attacks, ‘From my point of view, Bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists.…[but] he who kills Muslim citizens is neither a jihad fighter nor a terrorist, but a criminal murderer. We must call things by their proper names!’ (While The Brotherhood issued an apology for this statement, it does reflect the Brotherhoods' prominent non-favorable view of us.)
Mohammed el Baradei, who may replace Mubarak plans on putting the Brotherhood in key government positions. Oddly, he's considered a moderate by some newscasters. Glenn Beck, at times a chicken little, hints economic unrest only leads to socialism and collectivist thinking. Further added to the seriousness is that Egypt is a key gateway of the export of oil, all of which could cause trouble if put in the hands of anti-western ideologues.
The good news is that Twitter and Facebook broadcasting a ground view of the chaos is a good thing. While it was shut off, it was quickly turned back on broadcasting the revolutions. (Makes you think twice about having government control over the internet, even if it is for "our own good.") More information can never be a bad thing. (Although once President Obama said it was, while giving a speech to graduates.) When the world is watching, injustice is harder to pull off.
Getting rid of a tyrant is also a good thing. Supporting one for self-interest can never put the US in a good light. Often America's freedom is not hated, rather her meddling is.
Speaking of which, it's always good to see people scream for freedom.
What's needed now is freedom education. Only the idea of self-governance and free trade may increase Egypt's employment, the initial cause of the protests, strengthen global oil trade, our biggest fear and provide a better way of life there, what pundits argue about. Freedom is good, but Egypt will need help to stay on the right track. So who may lead or teach such ideas?
President Bush pushed freedom in Iraq and was called an arrogant cowboy. How dare the US force Western ideals and values there. The thing to realize is that true freedom IS a Western value and way of life. And history has proved freedom cannot be achieved through socialistic or Islamic extremist ideals… that is non-Western ways.
Unfortunately, President Obama may not be the best choice to sell freedom. Sadly, America needs a bit of education herself. What's at stake is Egypt may use this crisis to grow more West intolerant, both through Islam and possibly collectivism.
Anderson Cooper of CNN bashes Barbara Bachman for warping American history during her Tea Party rebuttal to President Obama's SOTU Address. She said of people arriving to America, "it didn't matter the color of their skin...their language...their economic status...once you got here, we were all the same." Coopers response was "As good as that sounds, that's simply not true, " citing Irish immigrants finding signs that read "No Irish need not apply", Japanese Americans placed in internment camps during World War II and enslaved Africans. Which lead to pointing out Washington and other founding fathers owning slaves and concluding with "we believe facts matter."
Progressives use the "Well Washington had slaves!" note to selective negate any important idea of a Founding Father and justify Leftist policy. The best reasoning came from Leftist Janeane Garofalo explaining that America was based on a sham. That rich white guys were in one room talking about freedom while they had domestic slaves, (wives) in the kitchen and societal slaves (blacks) in the field. Thus America and it's policy of small government is bad. Thus bigger government and changing what America stands for is good. Thus lumping any pro American with a slave owner is justified.
The fact is that America was founded on the idea of individual freedom. Of self-governance. Of small unobtrusive government. Her only role is to ensure individual freedom to self-govern and that no other force becomes obtrusive in civilian life.
While America was more free any other place, she still didn't have all her cards together as slavery existed at that time. But what was put in place was not just freedom, but also the idea that we the people can change, or "progress" our government to ensure freedom. Clearly slavery inhibits freedom. So in time we "progressed" and eliminated it.
That never justify health care for everyone at everyone's expense. How would a mandate be less obtrusive? How would government control promote self-governance? Equal outcome destroys freedom of choice. If all outcomes are the same, then there is no point in choosing one over the other. With choice eliminated, you have no freedom to chose your own path specific to your individual needs or even creative whims.
So we may "progress" but only in terms individualism never collectivism.
Perhaps Ms. Bachman should have said "America was founded on and stands for freedom. While we were and never are perfect, we find ourselves always in a constant struggle to preserve those principles. Our Founding Father's ideas are facts which matter. Ideas that it shouldn't matter the color of your skin, language or economic status. We are all the same." Even Anderson Cooper says this idea "sounds good." So let's "make it true". Or are progressives selective about the facts that matter?