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.