Freedom or Safety?

Kofi Annan is making his bid to affect the presidential race. Today British television aired an interview in which the Secretary General of the U.N. stated:

"I cannot say the world is safer when you consider the violence around us, when you look around you and see the terrorist attacks around the world and you see what is going on in Iraq".

Clearly Mr Annan would like to see President Bush lose the election on November 2nd, and you cannot chalk it up to his concern for the state of the world's safety. What is at stake is world leadership, and Kofi Annan represents that class of internationalists that sees its perogative to rule the world through the auspices of the United Nations. It is an unelected class, and it is driven by an ideology no less sweeping than that of the former Soviet Union. As the communists subverted the idea of the popular will to create a totalitarian state under which the will and the freedom of people were crushed, this new class, the Transnational Progressivists, or Tranzis, will subvert the ideals of democracy to destroy popularly elected democratic governments. Kofi goes on:

He told ITV that Iraq was on track to hold elections at the end of January and said he would speak out if he was not satisfied with the way they are conducted. "If that sort of judgment or any decision which is made which we think detracts from the credibility and viability of the elections, we will be duty bound to say so," he said.

In this new world, popular sovereignty is not decided by democratic elections, but by elections choreographed and blessed by the U.N.. It is a "Simon Says" world. People rule themselves only when Simon, the U.N., tells them to. And as the ruling ethos of the Tranzi worldview is order (under the guise of "safety"), and not freedom, Simon will not say "elect a new leader" very often.

I believe that the President's emphasis on saying that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein is the wrong message, because it plays into the very trap that the internationalists are setting for democracy. The War on Terror is not a war for safety, but freedom. Freedom is strangled when safety dictates our decisions. Think of the way a boa constrictor kills its prey. It holds fast to the ribcage, and every time its prey inhales, it squeezes tighter. Every time that a people make a short term decision for safety over freedom, as when the Spanish electorate gave into the terrorists who slaughtered their countrymen on 3/11, the terrorist boa constrictor gets a tighter grip on their lives. When the previous concessions no longer satisfy them, the terrorists will attack again, and the populace will be forced into another decision between safety and freedom. The breathing room of freedom gets smaller and smaller, until it suffocates and dies.