There is no such thing as "freedom" because it can't be defined objectively. No one is free to do anything they want or free to have a life they desire. Many are not free to use drugs, rent prostitutes, murder, rape, own certain weapons, to gamble, practice alternative religions, clone their children, etc. Many are not free to live without poverty, to have sex with anyone they desire, to be free of a low IQ, to be free of disease, etc. Rather, the freedoms of every person is limited by societal laws as well as the laws of science. I wish I was free to explore the universe, but I don't have that freedom. So, when Neo-Conservatives say that America is the only "free" nation, that Muslims seek to distroy American "freedoms," and that America will facilitate "freedom" all over the world, they don't know what they are talking about. They can't define "freedom" objectively. Do they mean the freedom to choose to watch "American Idol" over "Survivor" on the Fox News Channel? The freedom to Choose Taco Bell over Burger King? The freedom to drive a pick-up truck? If so, they need to be more specific. Instead of using the word "freedom" as an entity all in itself (which does not exist), they need to specify exactly what types of freedoms they are referring to. A more objective statement of Neo-Cons would be "I wish to give Muslim nations the freedom to eat pork, drink alcohol, watch the Fox Channel, practice Christianity, and listen to country music," for example. Of course, many Muslims may not care for these freedoms, but would choose other types of freedoms that are not found in America, such as the freedom to stone women, the freedom to ban Christianity, the freedom to have an Islamic theocracy, etc. So, the main point here is that freedom is in the eye of the beholder, and what one person considers freedom, another person may consider fascist. Some Islamic nations think the United States is the fascist nation that does not support "freedom." So, for Neo-Conservatives to use the word "freedom" as an absolute term where they are linking their desired freedoms as being the absolute definition of freedom, is incorrect.