Criag asserted that the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq are more like the KKK, than the Founding Fathers. And that the Iraqi election workers are more like the FREEDOM RIDERS.
I would add that the entire USA military in Iraq is also like the Freedom Fighters, too.
Which gets me to my point: To the post-modern Left, (which includes the Euroweenies and the base of the Democrat party), the USA is trying to "impose" its values on Iraqis and the non-Western world; to the Left imposing values is "cultural arrogance" and a reversion to a form - or aspect of colonialism, and it must be stopped.
Most of these very same people would NEVER make the same charge against the Freedom Riders, or any of the other Northeastern liberal groups that went down South to end segregation - and "impose" their values on southerners.
Now, they might retort: "well, in that case - back then - we're just trying to enforce federal law within "the federation" - the US Constituion gave us jurisdiction; therefore we were not imposing values; we were just imposing what had already been agreed to in the Constitution."
Fine. BUT.... would these folks then argue that the only reason that slavery, or segregation based on skin-color, was bad or wrong or immoral was because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!? Or would they have the courage to admit that slavery and segregation are INTRINSICALLY wrong and bad and EVIL because they violate the VALUES which are the FOUNDATION for the US Constitution; principally, that we are (1) endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights; and that (2) the government ONLY has limited powers that are granted by the people (who are sovereign), and only with consent. These human rights exist independently of the government - a priori; they transcend the state. That's why they're MORE than merely constitutional; they're fundamental and universal. Once one admits that slavery and segregation are wrong LEGALLY (in a constitutional sense) and MORALLY, then one MUST agree that they are also wrong UNIVERSALLY because these rights are human and not American. They're the core of Universal Human Rights that Eleanor Roosevelt devoted herself to and enshrined in the UN's Declaration of Universal Human Rights.
In fact, the Left indirectly uses UNIVERSALITY as the basis for arguing that we should (a) apply the Geneva Conventions to all combatants, and not just those specified in that treaty - and limited to its signatories. And they also imply universality when they argue that (b) illegal immigrants are entitled to all the rights.
SO WHY DOES THE LEFT THINK THAT IRAQIS DON'T DESERVE WHAT THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEDE TO ENEMY COMBATANTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS!? And why won't they fight as hard for Iraqis - and all other peoples EVERYWHERE - to attain their universal human rights, as they once fought for blacks in America!? Why does the Left attack President Bush for helping Afghanis and Iraqis and Arab Palestinians attain what the Freedom Riders helped blacks attain in the segregated south!?
I believe that the Left is hypocritical when it justly praises the FREEDOM RIDERS but unfairly criticizes "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and "Operation Enduring Freedom." Just as we would not tolerate slave trade anywhere today, we must not tolerate totalitarianism - which essentially makes slaves of everyone.
When we fight tyrannical totalitarianism - whether Marxist of Baathist or Jihadist - and no matter where it is, WE ARE NOT "IMPOSING" VALUES; WE ARE LIBERATING OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND ENABLING THEM TO ENJOY WHAT TYRANNY TOOK AWAY: their universal, inalienable God-given rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment