Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!

Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.


  • Rey Montemayor

    Dear Ron, please read “Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali”. From this book by Ali we can begin understanding “truth” according to present day Islamic cultural civilization.

    Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored – yes under a certain set of rules and mores. The baseline truth is that not everyone will choose to live as we are doing so.

  • Dan S

    read Geert Wilders’ expose titled “America, as the last man standing”.
    Wilders is a Member of the Dutch Parliment. Google it, it is too long to copy and paste here.

    • lg

      No thanks. If I wanted to read the works of a hate-mongering Euro Fascist I’d go for Mein Kampft.

  • william ridenour

    Just an addendum to my last post:
    The purpose of it was to counter what seems a widely accepted yet unexamined assumption by many here: that in order to be a committed Libertarian you must be a secularist and contemptuous of religion. The facts, historical and intellectual, dispute this assumption.

    Every tyrannical system in the last century, guilty of incomprehensible brutality against and the utter subjection of the individual, has been atheistic, hostile to religion (especially Christianity), positivistic in its legal out look, materialistic and skeptical in its world view and worshipful only of raw power. Yet, these systems present an apologetic that seeks to make them appear to as rational, humanist and compassionate.

    I find nothing analogous in Christianity, the most major and ancient forms of which have always sought separation and autonomy from the state, distinguishing between these institutions as sacred and secular––even when the Church was very powerful in the middle ages. (I do find such historical analogies in the Muslim religion, which has categorically rejected this important secular/sacred distinction, and which seems to be the religious corollary of the totalitarian state wherever it gains ascendancy in power.)

    Many of the most committed and passionate libertarians I know are Christians, including Tom Woods and Andrew Napolitano, both of whom are Catholic–– Woods, like myself, being a convert.

    While I cannot speak for them I would bet a lot of money that they see their libertarianism and their Catholic intellectual tradition as reenforcing of and complimentary to one another.

    I do not find an analogous effective defense of the Libertarian ideal in modern secularist thought. To the contrary, most such thought actually attacks individual rights and elevates the state, the collective and “the public good” over the individual.

    Ayn Rand, as many of us know here, is a notable and important exception, but, in my opinion, her atheism is the weakest part of her thought. I believe it significantly weakens the effectiveness of her other ideals.

    As opposed to Communism and collectivist thought as she was, it is not insignificant that atheism was the only ideal they commonly embraced.

    That mutual embrace placed their arguments in the context of the purely subjective, relativistic and the arbitrary. This made their dispute one of simply opposing personal opinions, with power only deciding who is the temporary victor in any given encounter.

    • Etaoin Shrdlu

      To william ridenour, posting on August 25, 2010 at 7:10 pm:

      While it may be true that many of the tyrannies of the 21st Century espoused atheism, your desire to give religion (and Christianity) a “free pass” doesn’t wash.

      The Fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany embraced the church (for their own political purposes). The Nazis claimed the destruction of the Jews was necessary to preserve their “Christian Nation”, and wrapped themselves in iconic imagery born out of Christianity. (They were the new teutonic knights of the Cross, etc.). Neither Hitler, Himmler, or Goebbels were excommunicated, and after his suicide a Requiem was ordered sung for Hitler.

      You say you “find nothing analogous in Christianity” to those tyrannies? You can’t have been looking very hard. Ask the Jews of Spain during the Inquisition (and later Expulsion). Ask the Huguenots of France. Ask Catholics persecuted during the reign of Henry the Eighth, or Protestants persecuted during the reign of his eldest daughter (a.k.a. “Bloody Mary”). Better yet ask all the Christians who were slaughtered during the various wars of the Reformation, killed over how to properly worship “the Prince of Peace”.

      “Separation and autonomy from the state” as the hallmark of Christianity? Don’t make me laugh. Since the time of Constantine, Christianity has always sought power from the state, and power over the state. Where do you think the idea of “the divine right of kings” came from? (And lest you forget, it is that doctrine our Declaration of Independence begins by rejecting. That’s what the American Revolution was about.)

      Our freedoms in this country came from the period known as the Enlightenment, the Age in which the United States of America was born. They are based on the work of philosophers who were (to use your phrase) “rational, humanist and compassionate”. That others falsely claim those virtues does not change the fact that they ARE virtues.

      As for Islam, I suggest your view of history is faulty there too. Granted, in today’s world many (if not most) Muslim nations are hardly in the forefront of liberty, but that wasn’t always true. When the Jews were expelled from Spain, most of them fled to Muslim lands. Why? Because they were treated better there than in most of Christian Europe!

      Since I don’t consider libertarianism to necessarily be a virtue, or any more “perfect” than other ideologies or philosophies (since humans are adept at mucking everything up), I won’t debate at length your claim that Christian “virtues” and libertarianism fit together comfortably. Ayn Rand certainly had little good to say about religion in general, and Christianity in particular (not that I consider her views of much worth either). But I very much doubt the man who advised “give all you have to the poor” and said that if a man asks for your coat you should give him your cloak too, would be comfortable at a Libertarian convention!

      As for secularism requiring contempt of religion, I reject that false statement. It’s true that many famous Atheists (such as Dawkins) express such contempt. But I regard them as merely the “mirror image” of what they despise. The term “fundamentalist atheists” describes them perfectly, though I prefer to call them ANTI-theists: people who are actively opposed to religion, as distinguished from those who simply are not religious.

      A true secularist, like a true humanist, is simply someone who believes temporal and secular issues require temporal and secular solutions. They believe in separation of church and state not out of hostility to religion, but rather (as Madison said) because mixing them corrupts and degrades both. The best statement of church/state separation was made long ago: “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto G-d the things that are G-d’s”. Now who said that?

      • william ridenour

        This is to Etaoin,
        First thank you for your post. You bring up many issues commonly heard, almost all of which are distortions or misrepresentations.
        For instance, your claim that Hitler and Mussolini were Christians is simply laughable. Both were hostile to the Church and persecuted Christians–millions of whom died with the Jews in the Concentration camps–two of those were martyred and canonized: St. Maximillian Kolbe and St Edith Stein, a brilliant philosopher and convert from atheism.

        The persecutions you mention in Spain, France and England were not carried out by the Church, but by the state and the state rulers. The King of Spain was determined that Spain would not be divided by the so-called reformers and heretics and proceeded accordingly. The King of England was simply mad, persecuted the Catholic Church, insisted he was the head of the Church in England and killed anyone who opposed him. In France, Hugenots were prosecuted by the State.

        You wrote:
        “A true secularist, like a true humanist, is simply someone who believes temporal and secular issues require temporal and secular solutions.”

        This is simply absurd. There is no such categories of “temporal” or “secular” solutions. I’ve never heard of any such thing. There are only good and bad solutions wrought by the tools of reason and objective analysis.
        Bad solutions are almost always wrought by some bias clouding the person’s perception and preventing him from seeing the matter with objectivity.

        In every age human nature is the same, in every age the tools of reason are the same—they remain all we have and they are neither time sensitive nor subject to the sacred/secular classifications. Contemporary man may trash natural law for the radical relativism of positive law, but that does not change human nature—it’s still there, like our inalienable rights, no matter how much or how brutally it is suppressed—and it will still rise up in the end.

        The one thing we’re together on is separation of Church and State–which is not to say these human institutions do not inform one another–most of our laws are rooted in religious moral values, as the representation of the Ten Commandments on the wall behind the Supreme Court attests. The Enlightenment wrought the Reign of Terror in France and mass murderers—carried out once again by a consolidated State. The moral tradition of the West, coming largely from Jewish/Christian moral teaching wrought England’s and America’s system of jurisprudence rooted in Natural Law.

        Never the less, the divisions of Sacred and Secular and the distinction between the authority of the Church and that of the State, the distinctions of Reason and Revelation as the two sources of human knowledge and understanding: all this came from the Church. As a Catholic I’m with you. Standing opposed to you would be the early Reformers, who very quickly united with various European states to oppose the Catholic Church and Muslims. The reason our Founders insisted upon non-establishment was largely because of Europe having developed state Churches (all Protestant which the state controlled) in Scotland, England, Sweden and Germany. Even the proposed solution to end Catholic Protestant warring at Augsburg (cuius regio, eius religio) was purely a state solution.

        While this can be debated the real issue and danger at hand is something that we ignore at our future peril: Islam categorically rejects the western divisions of Sacred and Secular and has always refused to distinguish between religion and the state: Islam, they say, is a way of life that must permeated the rule all aspects of society; the laws of the religion and those of the state must be, in substance, identical. This is what both secularists and religionists in America have to dread and face—if not now then very soon. It cannot be put off forever for the cultures of Islam and those of the West are categorically and irreconcilably opposed to one another–more so that Capitalism and Communism.

  • Christopher LoPresti

    House leader does NOT want investigation into mosque funding, she wants investigation into who is OPPOSING the mosque. Which is worse?

    • Chris Purdef

      I think she later came out and said to investigate EVERYONE like the good statist that she is 😉

  • william ridenour

    to the enemies of the Christian faith on this blog:
    Libertarianism, beginning with Jefferson’s Declaration, proclaims our dignity based on natural rights.

    The intellectual and legal tradition of Secularism in America ditched natural rights as the basis for our legal system and legal thought way back in the 19th century, embracing in its stead the nonsense of legal positivism.

    While the state has trashed natural law, traditional Christianity has been and still is the bulwark of natural law, affirming our natural dignity and rejecting that individual rights must give way to the demands of the state and the so-called Public Good.

    This is all over Christian writing but most clearly and forcefully brought forth in Leo XIII’s famous encyclical on social justice, Rerum Novarum. Prior to that numerous Papal bulls and encyclicals, beginning as early as 1435 condemned slavery and invoked natural rights–over 400 years before the so-called “Great Emancipator.”

    Jefferson invokes the “God of nature” as a transcendent giver and protector of our inalienable rights and as a great part of our justification for secession from the British crown.

    Such a paradigm essentially puts an effective barrier of protection between our dignity and liberties and the control and demands of the state. Basing our rights as the gift of “the God of nature” means the state is not the author of our rights; they are inalienable because they God of nature, who is their Author, has infused them into our very being. Therefore, taking our rights or suppression of our rights is not just the state acting over and against the individual but the Creator Himself.

    Even as hostile to natural rights as our present legal systems are, natural rights was the only objective grounds by which the Nazis could be convicted at Nüremberg.

    The Nazis argued in their defense that they were not war criminals, but loyal and obedient servants and citizens of their state, faithfully doing their duty as commanded.

    The Nazis claimed their prosecution was simply the arbitrary exercise of the victor over the defeated. They claimed that if Germany had won the war they would be heralded as war heros.

    They said they were being arbitrarily and unjustly prosecuted by a victorious state simply because they were victorious, and that whether they were great heros or craven criminals was simply a matter of perspective. They claimed they had not only done nothing wrong––they argued they should be honored for their faithful service and obedience to the state.

    Positivist law was incapable of effectively countering their objections and the prosecution had to turn to what western legal systems had shunted aside to make their case not seem, as the Nazis claimed, an arbitrary exercise of raw, statist power.

    The Nazis were right. Without a natural law counter to these claims prosecution and execution of the Nazis looked like nothing but the exercise of raw power by an opposing state.

    Natural rights was the only understanding of man that provided an objective foundation to limit the power and demands of the state upon the citizen’s fealty and obedience.

    Today, when you look at most so-called humanist documents and read them closely you’ll see they completely cave in and place the rights and demands of the collective and the “public good” over the rights and dignity of the individual. These humanist groups are either collectivist in nature or sitting ducks for the craft and cunning of those who would confront them with collectivist arguments.

    We forsake and heap contempt upon religious values and traditional Christianity at the peril of our freedom. Think about it: even a Deist like Jefferson saw clearly that justification of the rights of the individual and the claim of the inalienability of these rights over and against the demands of the Imperialist state required the defense and protection of a Transcendent power, over and above the power of the state. Any means less than that would prove insufficient and ultimately crumble to the despotic machinations of the tyrannical state and the autocrat.

    • Etaoin Shrdlu

      To william ridenour, posting at August 25, 2010 at 6:18 pm:

      I’ve noted elsewhere your “whitewashed” account of Christianity’s history, so I won’t repeat myself here. But there are a few things that needed to be added.

      Leo XIII was certainly no friend of democracy. He denounced as “Americanism” a movement to make the Catholic Church more democratic. Let you forget, the Vatican is the original model of an autocratic state.

      I question whether Jefferson can truly be called a Libertarian, at least in the modern sense of the word. But certainly his religious views would not find favor with the Church. He denied the divinity of Jesus, and mocked such doctrines as original sin, the trinity, the incarnation, the Eucharist, etc.

      What you, and a lot of “Libertarians” ignore is that in a democracy the “state” is not some alien occupying power. Our government was “ordained and established” by “We the People”, not by G-d. You cite the Declaration, but like most so-called conservatives, you stop short of the part where Jefferson wrote that to secure those inalienable rights “governments are instituted AMONG MEN, deriving their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED”. As I’ve written before, the whole point of this passage is to REFUTE the doctrine of the “divine right of kings” – the child of Christianity. Taking Jefferson’s words out-of-context to promote a kind of theocracy is poor reasoning, at best.

      Oh, and as for the “public good” being a bad basis for law, allow me to quote someone who disagreed. Speaking of a “convention” that met to create a new law (indeed, a SUPREME law), this “collectivist” wrote that the convention proceeded “by a deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interests to the public good . . .” – James Madison, Federalist Paper Number 37.

      Once again, sir, your “knowledge” of history is shallow, and consists of ignoring everything that conflicts with your ideology. In this you resemble the very groups (Nazis, Communists) you denounce!

  • Daniel

    August 25, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Bingo , and the US is collapsing just as sure as did building 7 , and all by the direction of the same naughty hands .

  • No religion USA

    No I don’t want a mosque near the WTC! Just like I don’t want a sexual offender living next to my kids elementary school. Just like How I don’t want skaters riding skate boards in front of my store. I just don’t. I don’t care if it hurts their feelings, It hurts my eyes looking at those women with them things over their heads and having to smell them.

  • Mark

    This is just a case that proves that multiculturalism is an inevitable disaster .
    Ron Paul is a man of integrity and his voice for the constitution and freedom is
    head and shoulders above the crowd .

    The problem being that a nation made up of very differing sub groups is ripe for internal strife and eventual balkanization and collapse . Every time , in every case in history .

    • william ridenour

      Precisely. Japan grew in strength after a disastrous war to become prosperous due in large part to their homogeneity. While we do not and should not seek to achieve and maintain racial homogeneity as they, we should (but don’t) seek unity of purpose in those who enter our nation.

      What this means is limiting integration based, not upon race, but upon intent and ideals.
      Simply because those who embrace and are committed to ideologies, religious or otherwise, that are categorically opposed to the core ideals of individual rights and liberty serve only to increase conflict in our society. Once here they will (and do) labor actively to deconstruct our society and culture from within. Or, at the very least, they will persistently litigate to form their own communities, creating islands of governance, laws and life based upon their own systems, utterly hostile to American ideals.

      Either of these possibilities lays the groundwork for a great confrontation of irreconcilable cultures and mutually exclusive world views.

  • Christine

    Chris Purdef —

    Have you read all the the comments? Each of us have different ideas/beliefs/opinions/political leanings/etc. I made a much longer comment on Page 9 last night about my reasons for supporting Ron Paul on this one subject. I am not a ‘LIBERAL’ even though I have some liberal leanings. I attempt to ‘think outside the box’ and respect all sides of an issue — and I recognize that many do not. Have a good day.

    • Chris Purdef

      Good! Then perhaps you can think “outside” the box that has a plethora Liberty supporters bashing the very foundations of the nation.

  • BG

    There is only one thing we need to take from this post, and it is something I’ve said since this whole conversation began, and that is that the Al-Qaeda attack does not justify blaming all 1 billion + Muslims in the world.

    The attackers may have belonged to the Muslim faith, but enough with the guilty by association. I’m sorry but even those that are offended by this and lost loved ones in 9-11 need to know the difference between AlQaeda and Muslim faith, and some do. The HUGE majority of Muslims were saddened by 9-11 and some were even killed in the attack as well. Timothy McVea was a Christian, we can’t prohibit Christian churches to be built around the OKC bomb site because he was a member.

    We can’t ask them to be more sensitive, they just want us to be educated and know that they didn’t have anything to do with it and shouldn’t have any lesser rights than any other freedom loving American. If we prohibit this, or even disuade the construction at this point, I fear that the entire Muslim community could/will see this as an indictment on their entire religion and that we as a country blame them for 9-11. And if we don’t blame them, which we shouldn’t, they should be able to build a mosque anywhere normal property rights allow.

    • Chris M. Purdef

      The problem with the statement that Dr. Paul made, and not being parrotted by the like without “rational thought” is that most of those speaking up against the mosque aren’t speaking out against Islam as a whole. They’re spreaking out against the location.

      McVea hapened to be a Christian he wasn’t murdering in the name of Christ, if anything he was murdering in the name of white supremacy. Perhaps if they wanted to build a monument to the KKK at that sight your parallel would have made more sense.

      Al Qaeda, on the other hand, killed in the name of Allah. As as much as we don’t hink to admit it. The Quran calls to kill the infadel. In order for a Muslim to be a moderate, as we like to think of them, they have to renounce a big portion of their faith.

      • BG

        If a large majority of people didn’t blame all muslims for 9-11 then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The constitution doesn’t allow us to decide where a place of worship can or can’t be. Yes people have free speach and have the right to be against this location. What Ron Paul is saying is that the majority of people speak out against it because they have been brainwashed by neo-conservatives and the media to believe that AlQaeda=Muslims=Islam which is completely false. If people continue to believe that AlQaeda=Muslims=Islam=”Kill all Americans” then the wars and contentions will never end.

        If the Quran really tells all faithful followers to kill all infidels then that means that 99.99999+% of all Muslims are not faithful followers. The Old Testament is full of rules and ideas that I don’t follow today, that doesn’t mean that I have renounced a large portion of my faith. Even if someone reads a book or follows a religion that does promote violence or has promoted violence in the past, which I don’t believe most Muslim churches presently preach, Muslims are still all innocent until proven guilty and we cannot incriminate an entire worldwide religion because of 19 crazed lunatics.

        Sadly, there have been many murders & tyranny in the name of Christian religions as well, but that should not reflect on the current Christian religions or their members, we still must be judged as individuals.

  • Bob Muenchausen

    Dr. Paul makes a very good plea for reasonableness from what has become the “far Right”.

    I think it very interesting that he has chosen the to name these folks as “Sunshine Patriots”, a term I have not heard used much since the 1960s and the emergence of the John Birch Society. Frankly, I think he is correct to use it as it probably describes those protesting the Mosque better than some other, more recent things he could have chosen. If you look into the etymology of the term, I think you will discover that it was coined in recognition of the opportunism extant in ultraconservatism almost 50 years ago, and recognizes that this is no less so today.

    • Mark Fey

      Bob Muenchausen,

      Minor items to clear up. The term “Sunshine Patriot” was used by Thomas Paine to describe the person who is a patriot only when that is an easy thing to be. A few more than 50 years ago by my count.

      I also agree that Mr. Paul was correct in his word usage.

      Oh, and the Birch Society “emerged” in 1958.

  • Chris Purdef

    This comment really doesn’t sound like Dr. Paul. He has been more compassionate in the past. I guess all the progressos in the movement have stunted his views. Of course property rights is an issue here, but it is not the overlying issue. Ethics, Compassion, and Morality more specifically, the respect for the lost of life (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

    Dr. Paul claims that opponents to this mosque are somehow connecting this to the wars of the middle east, (some may be) when if fact no one is talking about this, and no one is opposed to building a mosque outright. They’re only opposed to the location. If anything, Dr. Paul is the first I’ve heard tie this to the middle east.

    But since we’re on the idea of property rights, perhaps Dr. Paul would like to comment as to why the mosque is being fast tracked, the Orthodox Christian Church that was the only faith structure destroyed by the terrorist is being suppressed by the NYC Port Authority? No one REALLY is opposing the mosque. It’s going to be built. In the meantime, people have the constitutional right to speak out against it. Again, this isn’t only about property rights. The question remains, why did not Dr. Paul mention why the property rights are being suppressed against Christians in the rebuilding of the Orthodox Church. If anyone’s property rights have been suppressed, it is the Greek Orthodox Christian community.

    • Mark Fey

      Chris Purdef,

      Please read the comments left after this post to see many people tying this project to the middle east and beyond. (One fellow even takes it back to Charles Martel and the battles for Europe at Tours in 732, for goodness sake!)

      As far as fast tracking, this project has been talked about and planned for some years. It only became controversial when some organization decided to gin up the controversy to meet their own limited personal and political goals. These “Sunshine Patriots” could care less about the corrosive effects of these efforts on our nation. If their selfish goals are advanced a scintilla, the destruction of civility and basic rights for all of us seems a small price to pay to them.

      And the only ones keeping the Orthodox Christian Church from rebuilding is themselves and their planning efforts.

      • Chris M. Purdef

        Yes, of course it’s just the neo-cons that are manipulating the mosque to continue the war against the middle east. For some reason we overlook the libs utilizing the location and the Imam to create the flash point. In fact, they’re the ones that created the debate. The mosque is a message, and most of us who are against this construction aren’t seeking to destroy or hate on Islam, we take offence the location. The reason why the Imam chose this location, and why the libs are so hard pressed to defend him has nothing to do about property rights, or our Constitution.

        The Orthodox Church was the only faith structure to be destroyed by the terrorists. It is a damn shame that you would post that it’s the fault of the Church that it hasn’t been rebuilt by now. The Port Authority has been pursuing their own agenda, one that favors a mosque over a Church, or even a monument to the victims. You guys claim to be about property rights, to be against government intervention, yet you missed the boat entirely on whose rights are being impeded on. Perhaps you’re barking out of the wrong end of your mouths this time.

        The liberal movement has done just as much damage to this country than the neo-conservatives. In fact, the liberal movement has down more damage to the Campaign for Liberty Movement.

        • Chris Purdef

          Why is it when I speak out against liberals, I get a thumbs down?

          It’s also funny that just up until yesterday the meda was something we treated with discontent and skepticism, yet here today it our ‘sacred’ sounding board.

          Anyone who thinks that libs (through their media) aren’t banking on some sort of “act” by someone they can label a Christian (with his guns and his religion) so that they can try to turn the tides for the elections is kidding himself. This issues is more about that than the middle east.

        • Mark Fey

          I certainly never “…post(ed) that it’s the fault of the Church that it hasn’t been rebuilt by now.” I indicated they are free to plan and build. And PATH is clearly not an assistant in the Park 51 project.

          There is also no mention of any type of “cons” in my post. The voices in your head are giving you faulty information once again.

  • David

    Hi Everyone;

    Okay, here’s what i think on this. Of all the locations they could have chosen to build a Mosque, having chosen this one indicates that its being done as a willfull and deliberate insult to the American people. Ron Paul is right though in that this issue is being played by everything its worth by our banking system and our politicians in collaboration with their treason, to try and distract people from dealing with them so they can finalize their complete and total power and ownership over America and you yourselves as they have everywhere else in the world by now.

    I’ll ask everyone to forget about this issue for a little while, go read the demand and declaration i’ve posted to our government, and if you agree, then follow the instructions underneath and help is do it. Then we can get back to thinking about other things, lets kill the big problem and the dire threat to our existence and freedom first.

    I think i can promise everyone here, that if the Mosque is indeed constructed and this is not just some manipulation by the banking system to distract us from them, there will be several thousand Americans showing up with molotov cocktails as soon as its done and they will burn it to the ground. Whether we like it or not its going to happen and there is nothing anyone will do, nor anything anyone can say to change that, so why worry ?

    • David

      Re: the thumbs down on this, i’m not saying that i want this to happen, i’m simply saying that it will and all one has to do is watch some of the demonstrations on tv to figure that out. Right or wrong there are some very angry people out there, and just as Ron Paul has said, this issue is being purposely aggravated beyond all proportions to distract people from dealing with more dire things i.e. getting people to fiddle while Rome burns. Simple statement of fact.

      For myself its of little interest to me other than getting peoples attention away from it long enough to help us deal with the greater problem first.

  • jack ryan

    Ron Paul continues his personal “crusade” to prove that he is not in any way “racist” – that his race and culture denying libertarian philosophy will embrace the entire world, and save the entire world – including all 1.5 billion world Muslims. Ron Paul is basically stating that he has no problems with mass Muslim immigration in to the USA, Muslim colonization of our country and any problems America has with Muslims is “all our fault”.

    What utter rubbish!

    This pandering and whining is a continuation of Ron Paul’s response to the New Republic magazine’s smear that some of RP’s newsletters once contained negative comments about the Black African American Rodney King rioters/murderers, the Israel Lobby and militant homosexuals.

    Instead of simply standing up for perfectly legitimate positions (that Black Americans do not have a “civil right” to go on looting and murder rampages) Ron Paul backed down and insisted that he never wrote, said or even read his own newsletter!


    I lived in New York City when Muslim extremists bombed the World Trade Center in ’93 and knew these terrible people would be back again.

    Muslim extremists have always, ALWAYS used violence, terrorism against others to get their way. Ask Greeks or Armenians or French Algerian Pied Noir how nice, kind and tolerant Muslims are when they take over.

    I refuse to give in to these terrible people and pretend that the West’s conflict with radical Islam is all our fault.

    May I politely suggest that Ron Paul and his cowardly, treasonous non “RACIST” Libertarian cult go on free market libertarian missions to the Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan – try to see if you can mix Libertarian free market economics with Muslim slavery.

    $*@($$*@( idiots!

  • Dave

    If you put Ron Paul’s original essay together with the post from “Freedom from Religion” (12:54 am), I think it outlines an honest and truly libertarian view of things. If we could keep the religious nonsense (at least religious dogmas) out of libertarianism/tea party concepts, we would have a much larger base of rational, pragmatic, freedom-loving people coming to the movement. Lots of people who probably call themselves Progressive- modern, educated, liberty-appreciating, compassionate, and highly skeptical of Power, both Government and Corportate, I think are yearning for a Tea Party like movement of the people, but the religiosity ruins it.

    Once religiosity is dropped, and distrust of all big powers, Religious, Corporate, and Government is announced, we will have a movement the a big majority of decent Americans can finally get behind.

    • william ridenour

      I emphatically disagree with this post on a number of levels. First of all, it is not we American/Libertarians that have raised the religious issue here but the Muslims. Second, our religion (Christianity) is at the very roots of our identity. Typical of the secularist view is that we can simply push religion and religious values off into a corner, isolate it and carry on business as if it didn’t exist. This is unrealistic.

      Do you think there is an accident that liberty, democracies and individual rights found a home in the Christian societies of Europe and totalitarians, despotic systems have always been characteristic of Muslim lands? Do you think it is any accident that in every despotic/autocratic system that arose in the western world in the past century every one, without exception, has carried on a brutal suppression of Christianity and persecution of Christians? Do you think it was an accident that it was Poland, a land devoted to the Catholic faith, that stood up and won against Communist despotic rule?

      The Christian faith has been the foundation of our laws and moral principles. Secularism alone will not be able to resist the great pessimism from the Arabian deserts.

      Where religion has been forsaken in large part for hedonism and materialism, as in much of Europe, we’re finding their systems and societies are crumbling at the Muslim advance. Today, increasingly numbers of Europeans are rightfully fearful that their societies will be fundamentally changed and overrun and have no idea how to stop it.

      Just as a hint for our future: the political class and the black robed elites in the European courts have been a primary means of assistance to the Muslim advance in those lands.

      Try to shove aside religion and you will remove the primary hedge preventing those who would fundamentally change the cultural and social nature of our nation from doing so.

      As a disclaimer, I’m Catholic. But if I had no faith commitment at all my position would be the same here due to an unbiased, rational examination of recent historical events. I note there is a lot of irrational hostility toward Christianity among those who contribute and comment here. I submit to you Christianity is your ally in preserving American Liberty against a force that has repeatedly proven itself to be an implacable and determined enemy of freedom.

  • Robert Gosney to Ron Paul, Stop Your Demagoguery About We The People!

  • bobny

    Here’s how you obfuscate the truth. No one is saying don’t build the mosque, they’re saying don’t build it there. Why is it the Catholic church is responsible enough to understand that when there was a convent built near auschwitz, Pope John Paul II asked the nuns to move because of the feeling of the people nearby, but if its against the ideology of Islam it becomes demagogory or islamophobia?

    • Summer Wiliamson

      There is no “FREE SOCIETY” in America today. I’m not a racist against religion, nor color, but I’am allowed to speak my opinion,( I think I still have that right ? ) What you people don’t seem to understand is this is a slap in the face to the American People. true we have no business over there in their country fighting a senseless war ( thank you MR. BUSH ). Imyself do not support the war effort, but I do support our soldiers, those of who “Our Government” sent over there to be killed, “OUR OWN PEOPLE”( KILLED ). You say that “the building of a mosque near ground zero implies Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks” and it’s like blaming Christians for the wars of aggression”. Well, let me ask this, do you think that if we as AMERICANS went to their country and built a huge Catholic Church in their Capital City, there would’nt be an UPROAR by their citizens? Would that meanthat “they are oppressors of minority rights, and individual dictators”? Come on people! You all are squaking about 1st Amendment rights, well what about our rights as AMERICAN CITIZENS, we have no rights, our government let them come over here, trained them, and now we have to bow down to their every whim,PLEASE!. Almost every quick stop, etc. is owned by them, if we as American Citizens try to go into a business like that we get turned down, even our veterans, never mind “our government put them in business”. I, as a small business owner can’t even get help from “my own government”. All we get is taxed, maybe this is “about hate and Islamophobia”.

      • David

        Well, Susan, your post is pretty much saying things like they are and what i’m seeing from the demonstrations and public action which has been generated by this as well. I also agree with everything Ron Paul says on this as well in that we do have to remember the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution in regards to this.

        The questions everyone needs to ask are these. Why in the world, would anyone decide to build a mosque in this location, knowing full well the hatred and the controversy it would generate ? There can only be two possible reasons, either it is a willful and deliberate insult to the American people, or the situation has been engineered and manipulated in order to create the controversy and just as Ron Paul has stated and as i stated in my post further up, in order to distract people from more important issues. Think and ask some questions people, don’t just react, why would anyone in their right mind want to so this in the first place ?

        Here is the situation, America is heading toward the final evolution of tolerating a private banking system, of which we had a really good discussion awhile back right here and many more which have been posted on the various blogs on this site.

        Until now and over the past 6 months or so, the American population has been waking up in droves and figuring out how our banks have manipulated our political system though their ownership of our currency and control of our economy in order to establish themselves as a “ruling elite” over America’s population and they’ve also figured out that the current, long term and permanent depression were experiencing can only get worse, is simply and only due to the fact that these banks have managed to cheat and scam away all of the currency we need to trade with each other in spite of the fact that our production capacity and ability to create prosperity hasn’t changed one bit, so that they can continue to cheat and scam their way into owning all the property and then the people too.

        The American people have been fast developing a single mindset, and realizing that if they are to save themselves and their freedom from the fate of the rest of the world, that they need to act together and take back their country and economy for themselves from the private interests who have, in combination with the number of politicians they have put into power to serve their interests, usurped it for the purpose of reducing them under absolute despotism, just as they have every other country in the world up till this point with America being the last on the list.

        The simple fact that this issue can exist to begin with, or that 9/11 happened in the first place, is because these same private interests have manipulated the United States Government into involving themselves in the affairs of other countries which are no concern of ours instead of doing their job toward the benefit and prosperity if the American people. In doing so they have created another massive long drawn out war, which will never come to an end simply to create more debt so they can gain absolute power and ownership of the last of what is left of America even faster. Were it not for this, the Islamic extremists deemed responsible for 9/11 would not have cared less about us in the first place, nor would Islam have been anything but a different and curious religion to most of us either.

        What better way to distract people from this objective than to create a huge controversy that will generate so much hatred and conflict that it will completely distract everyone from dealing with the problem they had already determined they needed to deal with until more power can be established to prevent them from doing so ? Ron Paul has said as much and i’m saying it again here. Those on here who have been trying to defend our banking system were doing this on the Border Security blog awhile back too, trying to stir up hatred and controversy in regards to Immigrants and now they seem to have switched over to this issue and are trying to exacerbate it to the greatest extent that they possibly can.

        Whether the mosque is built or not, will not solve our economic problem which has the American people living in the worst state of poverty they have experienced in 70 years, while neither our production capacity nor our ability to create prosperity for each other has not changed one bit. Whether or not the mosque is built will make no difference in the ability of our Banking system to continue to gobble up ever more of our country, its industry and resources until it all belongs to them and they manage to establish ownership over the people themselves as they already have in every other place in the world but here. Our country and we ourselves are on the verge of starvation from tolerating an ever increasing parasitic infection which is going to kill us if we don’t swallow that tablespoon of kerosene to kill the parasite before its too late.

        If the mosque is built, just as i said in my earlier post, with the hatred and controversy which has been created, someone is going to burn it to the ground as soon as its done and those intending on building this already know this. Then if the banks give them money and pay them extra to build it again and let it happen once more and then again and again and again, so that they can and multiply the hatred and controversy x 2, x 4, x 8, x 16, x 32 and so on and continue to keep people busy hating Moslems with it and make them forget about getting rid of them so they themselves can have a chance to survive and prosper, what’s going to happen ? What else can this be other than one last ditch desperate attempt by the parasites to continue to remain in our system when we have already made up our minds that we need to get rid of them and are fully capable of doing so ?

        Are we really going to be stupid and gullible enough to let them do this to us again ??????????????????????????????????????????????????

        From the amount of attention this issue is getting it really seems so.

        Anyway go here:

        We’ve been discussing this for a little while on the sound money blog and i think this may be the tablespoon of kerosene which will finally kill the parasite, in the simplest, easiest and most painless way it can be done and allow the rest of us to survive and finally prosper together to the fullest extent of our own abilities, which are greater than most people here can possibly imagine. Take a little time out from this and do your part to make it happen and then whoever wants to can come back to debating this issue. As for myself i’ll just go in my shop and get busy with something fun and interesting.

  • RespectRon

    I am normally to the left of Ron Paul, but I can never help to have enormous repect for him as a man of honesty and integrety. This article absolutely proves that Ron is a man of principle and not of reactionary and emotional populism. While I have quite a number of differing political opinions from him (which I respect) he is an example of what politicians elected to represent their people should be like.

  • I have to say that Dr Paul is right.
    The republican party uses demagogues like
    Gingrich & Liz Cheney to use hatred against
    Islam to whip ppl up for their next war
    and the ppl of my city follow right along.
    I am not a Paul voter but he takes stands
    against his liar-4-hire party that are correct.
    My beef against Paul is that other parts
    of his ideology cannot stand up to the
    political reality of national political office.
    They go over great in speeches. Letting
    the banks go under in 08 is great as
    a congressman but not so great when
    you’re literally looking at world wide depression
    with billions unemployed. He would not
    do it if he were President.

    • Miguel Ortega

      “My beef against Paul is that other parts
      of his ideology cannot stand up to the
      political reality of national political office.
      They go over great in speeches. Letting
      the banks go under in 08 is great as
      a congressman but not so great when
      you’re literally looking at world wide depression
      with billions unemployed.”

      His ideas are very radical and insane. Like a non-interventionalist foreign policy, which prevents unconsitutional wars, close all the bases around the world that we are wasting money on and strictly concentrate on using the Federal Government to protect our borders and save a trillion dollars a year that we don’t have to protect our borders and better serve our citizens, NO to socialized medicine, NO to the Federal Reserve whos unconstitutionally bringing us through ruin and destruction of our currency, can you believe he actually wants to restore our economy to a true free market? RADICAL VIEWS in my opinion….. go listen to Paul Hank some more and believe what he tells you…

  • william ridenour

    Dr Paul rightly asks a fair question:
    Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

    Clearly, both parties are guilty of seeking political gain through demagoguery. And, no doubt, some political opportunists are doing so—but not all––not even the majority.
    Surely, those whose loved ones died on 9/11 are not demagoguing the present situation–what do they have to gain politically? A vast majority of We the People are surely not—as we see our government consistently betray us, refuse to defend our borders and nullify our express will by judicial activism we are deeply concerned about our security, our liberty and the liberty of our children and grand children. How damned hard is that to understand?

    I understand Dr. Paul is deeply involved with a long and difficult struggle with collectivists, centralists and imperialists that have abused their positions of power in Washington. With him I stand uncompromisingly against these traitors to Liberty.
    Humanly speaking, I can understand his perspective. I sympathize with it greatly: I too want to see Imperialists Neocons removed from power and the doctrines and wisdom of the Founders restored. But I think Dr. Paul is focused on the wrong object in this dilemma.

    Please consider:
    In the west we’ve largely forsaken the past for a radical materialism, moral relativism and indulged in unrestrained hedonism. Many of us have tried to suppress and forget the past.
    Not the Muslims. Nor have many of We the People.
    We the People, the non-political class, the common people, know with the Muslims throughout the world, that symbols are powerful. Great symbols are images that fix the mind in a certain disposition. Images and symbols have inspired whole movements in history. The image of the destruction of the twin towers are fixed in the minds of millions throughout the world, and that image means radically different things, depending upon your perspective. (Remember the wild celebrations in many Muslim countries when the towers fell?)

    Such symbols may not effect the so-called educated classes in the West, whose lives have been boiled down to living for themselves, accruing material gain and donning the trappings of so-called prosperity. But these symbols have great power in the minds of vast numbers in the Muslim world wide where they speak to their children daily about conflicts with the West that happened a thousand years ago. They remember Muslim defeats in the twelfth century like we in the South remember what was done to us by a brutal, unconstitutional all-out war in the 19th century.

    The issue here is not us; not the neocons or the political/ideological battles wages in Washington, but what the buliding of this Mosque means in the minds of militant Islam world-wide.

    We must see this event through their minds and eyes, and if we do we will understand building such an edifice is not just a petty diversionary matter trumped up by the Neocons in collusion with the Obama administration. It is something very power indeed. It will be one more thing that will confirm in their minds what Osama Bin Laden told them twenty years ago: America is a paper tiger—we can take them.

    It is because of the power of symbols in the minds of Militant Islam, not the partisan squabbles of beltway politicians, that we must seriously address this issue.

    If we give into this plan the matter will not be settled. Every acquiescence only invites more—and to that there will be no end until we gain some backbone, as the army of Charles Martel did at Tours: draw the line and hold it.

    • Mark Fey

      @william ridenour has written many fine sounding words, but in the final analysis his opinion expressed is deeply unAmerican and not well thought out.

      He argues for a kind of apartheid in America, where some citizens have their rights restricted by the majority who kindly ask them to drink from the separate water fountain reserved for their use.

      Mr. william ridenour, it is not about “If we give into this plan…” It is about if we are strong enough and wise enough to live up to our founding documents and highest American ideals. Anything else is cowardly and not fit for “the land of the free and home of the brave.”

      Read Mr. Paul’s words again, please. He has something to teach you.

      • Read William’s words again. Ron has something to teach himself.

      • Chris Purdef

        Since when is the rule of law “unAmerican” and “apartheid”?

        • Mark Fey

          When you distinguish a group to be afforded unequal privileges and opportunity in a society, THAT is “apartheid”.

          Rule of law is all that is needed to affirm the right and opportunity for all freedom loving Americans to have equal privilege and opportunity.

          ANYTHING less than that is UNAMERICAN.

      • william ridenour

        Mark Frey wrote:
        Mr. william ridenour, it is not about “If we give into this plan…” It is about if we are strong enough and wise enough to live up to our founding documents and highest American ideals. Anything else is cowardly and not fit for “the land of the free and home of the brave.”

        Let’s look at an analogous piece of reasoning:
        I guess it’s not about the poisoner, it’s about how much poison I can ingest and stay live. Yea, that’s American Machismo.

        If we indiscriminately allow those to who come here and proceed to segregate THEMSELVES off into isolated communities and game our courts to eventually establish a separate system of justice and punishment (Sharia) for themselves (just as they have done in many, many places to which they have migrated) we will see the end of “the land of free and the home of the brave.”

        When did one of our highest American ideals become permitting those who are intent upon destroying our culture and establishing their own here do so without resistance?

        How do societies characterized by tolerance respond to head on encounters with cultures, religions and ideals that have long been characterized by absolutist demands, severe laws and intolerance of divergent views and ideologies? By simply caving into them. IS THAT the American way? Is that how America became a great nation?

        Where would we be now if our Founders had said, “Sure, King George has been a little rough on us and we don’t share his views on hardly anything, but we shouldn’t cause any trouble. We have to be tolerant above all things, you know. After all, if we attack him the British might call us Regiophobic––and that would be the worst thing in the world. We just couldn’t bear that since we’re so phobiaophobic.

        What nonsense. Who made you king to proclaim tolerance as the sine qua non of Libertarian political correctness?

        Must every insult and abuse, therefore, be endured without resistance or reaction because we, as Libertarians, must as slavishly and mindlessly obey the idea of Tolerance as leftists do the idea of Equality?

        I thought America was about protecting and preserving OUR Liberty, not about having such a mindless adherence to Tolerance that it places our Liberty in peril.

        We have been known as the land of Liberty–not the land of Tolerance…and certain not the land of Tolerance for those who are intent on using American liberty to destroy American Liberty.

        Such mindless kowtowing to the god of Tolerance will destroy every other American value we hold dear, take our liberties and render us helpless to protect ourselves against an implacable and ancient enemy of freedom. Slavish adherence to Tolerance will make us the feckless and useful idiots radical Islamists want us to be. And our defense of them will not engender their friendship and gratitude but their contempt for our naivety and stupidity.

        Do you want America to become so tolerant that we cannot prosecute honor killings (like the one that took place only two years ago about 20 miles from my home in Dallas) because the killings are part of this group’s religion and culture, which has gained separate legal rights through our courts? (They still have no idea where that man has gone who murdered his teen age daughters because “they had become whores by dating Mexicans”.)

        It’s clear these executions were planned and his family assisted him in vanishing—and the cops in Dallas have done almost nothing in response because of the “cultural sensitivity.”

        How effective are you “highest American values” and precious tolerance in protecting the lives of children caught up in situations like this, Mr. Useful Idiot? Your rigid and mindless ideals are of little consolation to them or their broken hearted American born mother.

        • Mark Fey

          william’s words above are those of a proud bigot and are direct contravention of those policies of which American’s have right to be proud.

          They could have easily be spoken by the same people that ordered “JUDEN” to be painted upon the shops and homes of the people they wished to abuse.

          We certainly do not need to relive these nightmares of the 20th century again to renew the memories of ideology gone rancid.

          The tragic deaths that he mentions are not prosecuted because of “sensitivity”, they have a lack of evidence and cooperation. Why would people cooperate with hate and intolerance. Does this sound like a solution to you? We have laws that the people of Texas would be happy to apply to the situation you mention.

          What does liberty look like without tolerance? To say you are free, as long as you do not vary in your life from what is prescribed — This is not to have liberty at all! A person would be at the mercy of the people determining the “norms”.

          American values have been abused many times in the past, by people preaching expediency and/or seeing the opportunity to rabble rouse for their own purposes.

          Note to all readers of these comments:
          Read all of william ridenour comments with the knowledge that he excels at name calling and writing in complete sentences, but fails at being true American patriot. Review Ron Paul’s words to see the marked difference.

    • Very well written William. It reminds me that Ron Paul is one of the leading voices raising questions about how our overseas actions are viewed and interpreted by Muslims world wide. And how we are creating our own blow back because we don’t see our actions through their eye’s.

      Doctor, heal thyself!

      • william ridenour

        Robert, thank you. Excellent insight–I wish I could have put it so clearly and succinctly.