A continuation of my education of the neocon:
Let me get this straight. You think a tall slender man in the mountains of Central Asia is orchestrating the end of American freedoms. Okay. Assuming that true, we must also admit that Bin Laden has received help in this pursuit from the Bush administration. Are we not losing civil liberties because of Bush’s fear of Osama Bin Laden? Bush and Bin Laden: working together against American freedoms.
I did not mention personal responsibility, but I really don’t see how “the absence of government coercion” can exist without personal responsibility. Personal responsibility should be an assumption in America. There is no need for a nanny state. Also, you forgot the definition of the word “liberal.” I dislike progressives and socialists–not liberals, but liberals gone wild, progressives who seek to correct past grievances by creating more of them (like affirmative action or welfare) in the opposite direction, i.e., Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or just about every Democrat politician. This is why I can’t vote Democrat-because they are not really “liberals” but progressives and socialists. They pay lip service to liberty to get the anti-war and anti-surveillance state vote. The grocery list of complaints belongs to these people, but I can claim none of them–I would request earplugs if I had to spend more than a few moments listening to whatever crap the media has told them to worry about lately. True, they share my discontent with the war, but they have no idea why. I dislike unjust war. They just dislike war.
My guide is nature. “My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” My common ideal is individualism–the belief that a human is a human, and should be free from government-forced collective ideals. Individual freedoms used to be a Republican Party stronghold. So did claiming that there is no need for the nanny state. Apparently the party now believes individual freedoms are not as important as some greater ideal (this is the opposite of the Reagan conservatism that carried Republicans to Congress in 1994). We have fallen into the trap of believing that, if we become a little bit more like the militants and totalitarians, it will be easier to beat them. But without liberty, what is America? Oh well, this year’s media-anointed Republican candidate is only the straw man anyway. His only hope of winning is if a terrorist attack occurs before the election (he can cross his fingers and hope).
It is unfortunate to read that even our most promising youth recite party ideals instead of practicing personal responsibility and thinking for themselves–that they mangle the meanings of simple words like “freedom” and “liberty,” and misfortune turns to fright on the realization that energy and aspiration are combining with falsehood. What falsehood, you may wonder. Only this: “Americans do not incite violence.” This is your opinion, and it will remain the same regardless of what the facts are. Perhaps you did not read the 9/11 Commission’s report. Perhaps you misunderstand human nature. Perhaps you misunderstand the historic social revelations of the 20th century. But you should understand that your ignorance (assuming not ill will) combines with your democratic influence to “plunder seas and ravage coasts,” and yes, incite violence.
In Iraq’s Diyala province, Specialist Jerry Ryen King wrote, “I thought it was pretty comical that I shot at a guy a long ways out but missed, and later after taking his house and using it as a patrol base, he offered me Chai and rice.” In the insanity of war, this does seem comical, but what if he King had not missed? Might the killing of a gentle, peaceful Iraqi incite violence from his friends, family, and countrymen? Might they even become associated with the dreaded Al-Qaeda? It makes some sense. Such, I realize, are the necessary realities of war, but they are also the reasons unnecessary wars should not be waged.
I would, if I could know the facts, give Bush credit for preventing the attacks since 9/11, but his government is so secretive that I cannot know whether his preventative measures have done much good. Has he saved 5,000 American lives to make up for the 5,000 he has sacrificed? Has he saved only a few? One can only wonder. Moreover, his solution to terrorism is like pulling the leaves off of a tremendous tree, only to see them multiply faster than he can remove them. In order to down the beast, we must lay the axe to the root, and he seems quite unaware of that simple truth. He seems not to even know the root of terrorism-why in the early 1990s Osama Bin Laden and his contemporaries began professing their hatred for America. If the President does know these reasons, he is careful to ignore them and focus on “democracy,” the esteemed political process that gave the coercive powers of government to Stalin, Hitler, Ahmedinejad, and Hamas. Democracy: not the solution. Constitution is the solution.
Your interpretation of Osama Bin Laden’s quote is reminiscent of National Socialist Germany’s claims about their enemies-at least they had the luxury of lying about nations with real military power–the American neoconservatives’ cause is much more difficult, because they are forced to try to convince our nation that an obscure figure living among mountain goats on the other side of the world is our greatest threat to national security. Maybe you forgot that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia-nearly every nation we now blame for terrorism-also hated Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. Maybe you haven’t noticed the exponential increase in Al-Qaeda’s numbers since we went to Iraq. Indeed, everyone in the Middle East seems to be allied with Al-Qaeda now, when on September 11, their numbers were no more than a few hundred. How, on the battlefield, do we know they are Al-Qaeda? Quite simply, if they are dead, they are Al-Qaeda-excuse me, were Al-Qaeda. Maybe I don’t know the facts on the ground as well as you do, but I think it noteworthy that more troops (who know the situation better than both of us) donated to Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign than to all the other campaigns combined, Democrat and Republican. They must be confused about what is going on in Iraq, right? Perhaps they are only victims of their unfortunate oath to the Constitution-those poor misguided young souls who promised to defend something that their Commander in Chief does not believe in. That’s alright. We showed the troops. They want Ron Paul as Commander? We’ll give them John McCain! May they fight in the Middle East for a hundred years, regardless of the situation on the ground!
It is the claim of the socialist, the fascist, the corporatist, the sycophant, the Democrat, and the Republican that the Constitution is antiquated. “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.” They often base this thinking on the fact that many of the framers owned slaves, as if that makes all of those men’s intellects repulsive. It has become too common in this country to disregard all of a man’s principles because of one of his practices, and view politicians as semi-gods, cowering in shock anytime they humanly misstep. I know you only mean well for your country, as nearly all do, but men of your nature, who believed in their country but not in constitutional liberty, were hung at Nuremburg despite their good intentions. If we choose to continue to ignore the Constitution even when we are aware of the results of our errors, the United States of America will soon be compelled to proclaim, in the words of the poet, “a long farewell to all my greatness.”
The response I got from the letter above was something along the lines of, “I don’t have time to think about all this. I am busy with more important things. I just want to be a career politician. Leave me alone. Please go back to not thinking, like the electorate is supposed to do. Thank you, and don’t write again.” If the author makes an attempt at public office, I will sell my condo to donate money to the other guy’s campaign. I like to think politicians do not know that what they are doing is causing all sorts of problems for their country, but this guy is just an insensitive bastard.
Filed under: Corruption, Personal, Politics | Tagged: campaign, democrats, election, hillary, individualism, iraq, mccain, neoconservatism, obama, osama bin laden, reagan, republicans, Ron Paul, terrorism | 2 Comments »