Spinning Equality

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?


The Middle East Seed

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.


Collective Reasoning

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.


Teaching Egypt Freedom

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.


Rewriting History

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?


Our Sputnik Moment

No one can argue this is an important moment in US history. President Obama elegantly called it our "Sputnik" moment in his SOTU address.

But if this is our Sputnik moment, who is Russia in this comparison? In other words, who are we competing against? What's at stake? Who are the bad guys? China perhaps? Are we to beat China through better education and innovation? China has it's share of problems. They are also unsure of their educational system, which is regarded as too militarist in style. And they do not encourage any innovation. In fact, so starved, China's been known to steal innovation.

In our Sputnik moment, the key issues just may be education and innovation. We need to be educated and reminded who we are as Americans and what we as Americans stand for in the world. We're not just another country or participant in the global economy, but one who perpetuates the idea of self-governance. Of independence. Of freedom. Should our education system be one of strong union holds or of open competition that weeds out inefficiencies? Should our innovation come from subsidy and government favoritism often controlled by special interests and specific agendas or through a near chaotic free market, where ideas reap rewards but also the burden of failure on their own merits? Or do continually march away from our founding principles as Francis does here?

This is certainly our Sputnik moment, but this time the Reds are much closer than Cuba.


Missing the Target

Leftists want to ban 15 shot clips, thinking far less damage would have resulted if Jared Lee Loughner had fewer bullets. The reality is a person who wants to kill humans will practice switching clips faster or simply shooting more accurately, aiming for the chest or part of the head responsible for basic functions like breathing not higher functions which often can be reprogrammed. Or the next killer could learn karate to fend off good samaritans while changing clips. Why not use 2 guns, dropping the spent one to continue on your rampage "leave(ing) the gun… take(ing) the cannoli". Lastly, the potential killer would do what any Islamic terrorist who never experienced 2nd Amendment freedom and use home made bombs from everyday material to do real damage.

Legislation is never pro-active. They come after the fact. First someone tries to kill using a shoe bomb, then we remove shoes for travel. First someone breaks into the cabin of a plane to take down all souls on board, then we use better locks on the cockpit door. When one door closes, another opens. Legislation will never solve future problems accomplishing the mission to keep us safe. But legislation will make the political author look good. He did something, constituents would say. Yes… he fed his ego and bought votes from those who don't have a clue how to stop evil.

So what are we to do against such evil? What stopped Loughner, the Ft. Hood shooter, 911's Flight 93, or the shoe and underwear bomber? What stopped any horror we face? The nude scanners? Police? The Feds? Homeland Security? Government legislation? No. Ultimately we stopped them. Us. Regular people. Individuals who took responsibility to protect themselves and self-less enough to protect each other. The true meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not to preserve hunting or shooting ranges, but to "bear arms", to protect yourself, to always keep your guard up. That doesn't mean everyone needs to pack heat. But it does mean for everyone to rely more on looking out for yourself than expecting government to do it for you and to pay attention to each other's needs rather than looking away.

If leaders want to sure up our defenses, they would remind us that being American is to be brave and stop injustices. It does happen. We tell our kids if they see a classmate being bullied, they are to not stand idly by, defend the weak or at least run to get help. We shake stranger's hands in church to make ourselves known to each other, making it awkward to drive by when the other has a flat tire or in need of help. From helping an elderly woman across the street while another slows to give them time to cross, to pulling her off subway tracks, while another grabs the conductor's attention, we do what we are capable of to help one another and ultimately ourselves.

Just as God has given us free will, the government ensures we keep it. Regulating kindness effectively is to destroy free will and freedom. We are Americans. Land of the free and home of the brave. Our leaders should be reminding us from time to time instead of us reminding them.

Do I wish Jared Lee Loughner had a 8 clip rather than 30? No. I wish he found love 2 days before his rampage.


Hope And Change?

President Obama is fixing to deregulate to strengthen the economy. Wasn't that a bad thing like extending the Bush Tax rates so rates wouldn't increase this year, in effect creating the largest tax hike in US history? Leftists like Keith Olbermann will spew vial rhetoric if this novel "Regan-esque" deregulation and lowering taxes scheme takes effect.

Does our President mean business with this business? Or is his radical change just an inflection point? Sounds more like a typical middle of the road political approach to mean everything to everybody. What do you think?


Who's A Liberal?

This is a tribute to Patrick McDonnell's Mutt's character Mooch, who has a lisp and a rebuttal to my friend and political adversary Xeth Feinberg in his cartoon exclaiming a conservative doesn't believe in conservation

"Conservative" in terms of environment means to conserve our resources. Don't cut down all our trees and such. In terms of politics, it is to not use government as a solution to every problem we face.

The other reference is to George Orwell's "1984" term "Newspeak", which is to pervert the meaning of words to better control people's ideas. What you thought meant one thing, now means another. It's a way of changing history to better back an argument. It's the equivalent to saying Martin Luther King taught us we are all equal. Actually his message is for us to treat each other according to our character not color. That our actions define us not a pre-determined social standing, whether detrimental OR corrective.

Somewhere along the way, Conservative became Newspeak for war monger and Evangelicalism. It's causing me to re-think the title of Angie's 1st book… Perhaps the title should have been "Angie: A Liberty Loving Libertarian Lost in the Progressive Sea of Leftist Liberals, Statist Socialists and Relative Reds!" Perhaps for the next printing...


Government Colored Goggles

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum commented on the AZ shooting best by saying, "The left always looks at things through the prism of government, so they are saying: Where was the state, where was the school? I would say: Where were the parents, the friends, the neighbors?". One way grants power to the individual and family to solve the ills of society. The other the state and government. Only one way embraces freedom. And only one represents America's calling in the world. As the President mentioned, which would Christina Taylor Green want?


Convenient Collective Responsibility

For the past month I've turned off politics to finish a non-political cartoon called Family Pants' The Holiday Hedging Horror, celebrate Christmas and complain about rising gasoline prices. I somehow found a political undercurrent in the cartoon about limited government and anarchy and added a line or two about it in my post. Afterward I turned on the TV to find the Arizona shooting horror involving killer Jared Lee Loughner, with some bizarre wording similar to "limited government", "anarchy" and "the Tea Party".

Understanding today's vitriol, some of which I embrace for political humor, I did not want my intent misconstrued where I describe my lead character Frank Mueller as an anarchist. It was in the context of his wanting smaller government by means of simply refusing government and societal help and taking it upon himself to correct his situation on his own. It was a stretch since the cartoon was pure silliness so I decided to remove the political paragraph.

Never less it stressed individualism over collectivism and smaller government over intrusive government. This is always the undercurrent to conservatism. But never should anyone embrace the "anarchy" of smaller government through the killing government officials or anyone for that matter. Nor should people worry about Sarah Palin's chance or running in 2012 over the murder of innocents or use any tragedy as a tool to better silence opponents.

Name calling and even threatening remarks in today's politics are the result of heated debates in the age of the power of anonymity thanks to internet facelessness. Much like the ability to curse out a 6 foot 7 inch jerk who cut you off in traffic but saying thank you to the same Frankenstein as he steps on your foot in person on the train.

These threats are never literal, whether from the right or left. Like high school coaches telling the football team to "kill" the other team, no mentally stable kid thinks the coach means for you to actually kill them. If one player does so and cites the coach's command, we arrest the kid, not blame the coach. Unfortunately politically correct squads will try to regulate the aggressiveness of coach's future half time speeches only to the jeers of normal people who realize that kid was unstable long before he suited up that day as is the case with Loughner, who stalked his victim before the existence of the Tea Party. If it wasn't the coach's speech, Palin's "targets" or gun reference, it would have been a "Beavis and Butthead" cartoon or rap artist Eminem to take the fall.

Rather than focus on individual and personal responsibility, the coach's rhetoric gets the blame and unfortunately becomes a tool to advance the politically correct squad's agenda such as we should watch soccer rather than football.

The blame game abandons individuality.

The only evil here is Jared Lee Loughner, whose insane ramblings contain the words "anarchy" and "smaller government", but also left leaning subjects as pot smoking. We can no more pass off blame to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party or current political vitriol than we could blame the woman who wears a short skirt for being attacked on the street. The attacker is always the villain. If anything, the girl is displaying poor taste, losing her respect in some circles but oddly championed in others. Palin's target reference is subject to her own personal verbiage and judged by her audience and not to be the blame of violent acts of madmen.

The abandonment of individuality is common for the Left. In the Arizona shooting, such abandonment of individuality is actually a means to support collectivism; perhaps calling for a future regulation of political discourse, especially if it opposes Leftist ends. Maybe a banning of talk radio or town halls where voters can address concerns directly to politicians who are seemingly isolated from their constitutes' needs. Ironically rapper Eminem supports individualism and personal responsibility as he raps, "Just what damage can the pen do?" in "Who Knew" off his Marshal Mathers CD. And we all know Mr. Slim Shady is not a Sarah Palin supporting Tea Party enthusiast...