I received a letter the other day which addressed me as a “Conservative Activist”. That night I saw a television show that made me realize some might consider me a “Survivalist”. Here, all the while, I thought I was a “Capitalist” speaking out against “Marxism” in America and supporting our troops fighting “Terrorism” abroad, so the rest of us can live to enjoy “Freedom” at home. Freedom. How’d that word get in there?
Lately, freedom seems to have gotten lost among the labels and, as it turns out, some of us don’t really understand what it is. Take, for example, a Liberal friend of mine [about whom I've spoken before] who agrees with the acting president that we have no right to “impose our way of life” on people in other countries. They both call it “meddling”, as does Mahmoud Ahmedinejad — who probably didn’t even know the word existed until our own B. Hussein Obama used it and gave him the opportunity to toss it back at us as propaganda. My friend has finally quantified the reason we can’t agree on any of the issues: we disagree on the fundamental principles.
What none of the three aforementioned understand is that freedom is the natural condition of human kind. Our founding fathers realized that reality and wrote about it often. Freedom comes from God, not from man. Since it can only be suppressed by man [governments and tyrants], helping to restore the natural order is neither imposing nor meddling. Millions of Iranians risking their lives in the streets of Tehran know that too and are waiting for words of encouragement from America — but our shining beacon at freedom’s door is dark. My friend says it’s none of our business because no one has asked for our help. I don’t know why anyone thinks so many signs in the crowd are printed in English but I’m guessing they’re the same people who think the revolt we are witnessing is still about the election.
Obama is an embarrassment. He has abdicated his responsibility as any kind of free world leader. Even France and Germany have spoken out but, for all the meaningless drivel he and his teleprompter have generated, his deafening silence is broken only by a few vague remarks about the government violence. This ideologue is coldly recasting the very essence of what America is about and will have the blood of thousands on his hands if Ahmedinejad once again slams freedom’s door on the fingers of the Iranian people.
Let me be as plain as the ears on ‘Bama’s head. When he apologizes for the brilliance of America, he does not speak for me. When he parades weakness in front of the world, he does not speak for me. When he insults our friends and friendlies up to our enemies, he does not speak for me. When he says America is broken and should be fixed with massive government programs, he does not speak for me. When he demonizes success and tramples our Constitution, he does not speak for me. When he disrespects the military or degrades their mission he does not speak for me. When oppressed people cry out against tyranny and are willing to die for freedom, he doesn’t speak at all.
So all other “ists” and “isms” notwithstanding, I say to my Liberal friend that I mostly consider myself a “real-ist”. Occasionally my government loses its way and as long as there is a First Amendment, I will speak for myself and try to influence a course correction. I have always been and shall always be proud of my country. If supporting those in other countries who are trying to restore freedom’s natural order is “meddling”, then I’m a “medd-ler”. There, we now have a “ler” label.
Above all else, I am an American and to the people of Iran, if our acting president won’t say it, I will — Press on! We hear your voices and you are not alone. God and the American people are with you!
R.S.F.
0 Responses to ““Ists” and “Isms””