Dear Ernie,

      Important headlines you published in the front page – like this one: Who rules Egypt is none of our business [http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=5514] -- need a thorough public discussion as they affect our national interest, more so when they impact our way of life, and most of all, when international terrorism is involved that threatens our national security.

      But due to your editorial policy, contrary views and opposite reports are not given equal or parallel front page exposure for reason only known to you or for reasons hardly known to the public … especially when contrary reports or opinions are critical of Libertarianism in extremis or critical of disparaging Libertarians not of reason like us but of emotional jingoism that finds a garrison at FP.com when they attack the enemy of individual freedom and liberty, real or imagined. 

      If this is a form of editorial control on your part that you as publisher is duty-bound to exercise to protect the interest of the public, then you are going exactly in the opposite direction … the wrong way. For fear of editorial retribution, perhaps no writer connected with FP.com would honestly say this directly to a publisher with your temperament except yours truly whose belief in freedom of expression is stronger than any kind of fear anyone may imagine, a gift of free speech in this land of the free that I cherished dearly, which obviously is much bigger than anything else, or even larger than life itself.

       For example, if you give a front page exposure to what I am about to say, parallel to what you have reported, i.e.  “Who rules Egypt …” you will give the public a chance to know the opposite view that exposes the fallacy propounded by the author in his one-sided, and to a certain extent, even false report!

      The author R. Lee Wrights claims that in dealing with the street turmoil in Egypt, “American interest are best served by being on the side of the people …”  This is to say the least, misleading … a very myopic view of what’s happening around the world that does not help ordinary Americans understand the current turbulence in Egypt.

      The people are conducting a massive public demonstration against what the demonstrators perceived as the tyrant government of Egypt. In Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Palestine, North Korea and similar countries, the people are burning the American flag, destroying American properties, invading U.S. Embassy grounds, taking American hostages as in Khomeini’s Iran, torching Uncle Sam’s effigy everywhere … also for their right to conduct a massive, even violent public demonstrations against what they perceived as their own public enemy No. 1, which was spitefully identified as “the terrorist U.S. government”.

      For author Lee to say that American interests are best served by being on the side of the people is stupendously foolish! It is a poor judgment that in the practice of journalism is totally irresponsible.  He must know what “people” he should be talking about.

      In Egypt, the people engaged in a running street battle with government authorities ordered to squelch the riot and maintain public order are not entirely innocent people who are demonstrating to serve their own interest. In a less violent part of the city, a 7-year-old child swearing against Mubarak and acting like a professional politician calling for the downfall of the Egyptian government right in front of the television camera tells us that the protest was stage-managed. In general, protesters were after the head of President Mubarak and his protector, referred to by street shouters as Mubarak’s “puppet master” in Washington, D.C., a protest that serves the interest of Mubarak’s old time Islamic foes Al Azhar and the Muslim Brotherhood and their provocateurs who are operating behind the scene of chaos and anarchy.

      Are there really “legitimate” freedom marchers joining the mob in this street protest? Of course there are. But what percentage of the whole anti-government demonstrators they are anyway is hard to say.  But the point is, the bigger number they are, the better cover it is for those who really operate behind the public commotion to topple down the Mubarak government and achieve a power-grab for the control of Egypt. Once complete control of the country is in the hands of a cleric-backed military or in the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists themselves, Egypt will be released from its commitment not to invade Israel the second time around, according to the Arab-Israeli peace accord that concluded the 1967 Desert War.

      The written rhetoric in this article that whoever rules Egypt or what the next ruler wants for Egypt is “none of our business” is one of the most questionable if not totally ignorant statements I have seen across the board since this breakdown of peace and order in Cairo and nearby cities began to catch international attention. The Iranians led by their swearing jihad president to eliminate Israel from the map, wanted to develop their nuclear facilities and atomic plants reportedly for peaceful purposes, and this reckless author did not even stop to think why the United States, the U.N. and the international community in general won’t let them or won’t just leave them alone and mind their own business!

      Why is this not a question that should be left alone to Iran to decide, similar to the question that Egyptians should be left alone to decide as to who should rule Egypt?  The answer is obvious. I do not want to waste my time to elaborate the answer and educate those who pretend to be ignorant to cover up their motive that is suspect. For me to go down to that level would treat our readers like kindergartens, and worse, insult the intelligence of the American public.

      Here’s another juvenile statement in the article you reported that mesmerizes the less discerning readers as it distorts historical events and beclouds the understanding of U.S. involvement in global affairs: America should urge all nations to join us in supporting the people of Egypt by leaving them alone to decide their own form of government as they exercise those blessings given to all mankind - Liberty and Freedom… R. Lee Wrights. [underscored]

       It is a very disarming rhetoric because it speaks of liberty and freedom. Why can’t we leave Iraq and let the now democratized Iraqis take good care of their own problems since we have already done more than enough in terms of billions of dollars that this country had spent and thousands of lives of our men and women in uniform that we have lost?

      The answer lies on the reality of the war we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, when controlled areas are left to the people so that they are free to live the way they want to, a security vacuum is created and the enemy fills it up by taking over the entire village. The area has to be militarily re-taken from the enemy in another battle, amidst the loss of more lives and resources.

       We would have lost Iraq had we withdrawn according to the maddening call for immediate unconditional withdrawal sounded by the anti-war opposition led by opportunistic politically correct politicians like then Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, until he became president and realized he was stupendously wrong! Now he begs Congress to fund continuation of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan which millions of taxpayers of course take with a grain of salt, not speak of hidden contempt.

      In WWII, why didn’t we leave the Polish people alone to take good care of their own problems when Hitler invaded Poland? Did we start that world war? No, we didn’t. Europe’s quarrel with Hitler was none of our business!  But we got involved in trying to relieve the world of the likes of Hitler, the Butcher of Baghdad, Slobodan Milosevic, the Balkans Bully, and the rest of their kind … genocidal maniacs that murdered millions of people across the globe. Is it really that difficult to understand why we didn’t leave them alone or why we just didn’t tell the  whole world then that it was none of our business?

      That intruding into other people’s lives is a contemptible and wicked business of the ungodly, is like cutting off the nose to spite the face. Either we don’t leave the world alone or the world wouldn’t leave us alone.

     Be that as it may, still most of us hardly realized that the once sea of humanity is now but a globalize tribe living in just a small village.

     Consequently, to think philosophically as an erudite proposition that every man is an island free to do anything he wants or as he pleases – a threatening misconception if not misuse of individual freedom, especially on the part of Libertarian extremists who carry a chip on their shoulder -- would incredibly betray not only a hidden snobbish but also a faulty mentality, in fact an unforgivable hypocrisy because in this kind of deceit the truth is scandalized, and to mock reality in this manner would make one dangerously delusional, if not an outright danger to himself and to society.

      This is one of the cogent reasons why stonewalling those critical issues in the current problem of Egypt is inimical to public interest. When views or reports opposite or contrary to the reports of Libertarian extremists published in the front page of FP.com are not given parallel exposures, it is tantamount to a public censor of the Press. It is no longer freedom of speech but freedom to oppress and suppress the freedom of expression which is not in accord with what we Libertarians stand for here at FP.com.

Sincerely,

Bakadude/02/08/11