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?