Skip to comments.Ron Paul: Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam
Posted on 08/20/2010 8:55:24 PM PDT by speciallybland
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? .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.
(Excerpt) Read more at classic.cnbc.com ...
In before everyone talks about the need for an endless war against Islam and everyone who doesn’t agree is a traitor.
Looks like Paul got his DNC talking points memo.
I was expecting to see something like this from Ron Paul sooner or later.
Wow . Must be wonderful to be so detached and above it all . He must need a crane to mount that horse he is riding . F off dope .
Uh, they’re the ones that declared war on humanity.
Something is not kosher in this Deli?
Ron Paul does not understand self-defense! Pure and simple.
His level of competence is at town/county/state banker at best.
Maybe High School history/political science teacher.
First time I saw him on Morton Downey in the ‘80s, I knew he was off his rocker.
The crazy uncle strikes again.
Islam is waging an endless war on the west, the west is just defending itself. If you want to stop our war against Islam, then first stop Islam’s war against us.
ron paul NEVER attack the democrats, whenever theres an issue in which the dem is on the wrong side, he will always cry this is all noise, waste of time. But if the situation was reversed, he will join in attacking gop, without his usual its all noise, waste of time
Yes, sure, fine. Are we allowed to bring up who it is that is building it, and where is he getting his money? Is that all right?
I would never violate his property rights. Am I allowed to wonder how he was able to get permission to build it so quickly, when a church in the same location might go years trying to get permission from the planners and still not get a permit?
Yes, I realize better than anyone that city planners violate property rights every day of the week. So I’m glad Rauf’s rights are being respected. Its just odd, is all. Am I allowed to notice that? Am I allowed to notice that Obama’s State Department is picking up the tab for his fund-raising trip? Am I allowed to notice that its being paid for by foreign interests? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but am I nevertheless allowed to notice and comment? Or would that be demagoguery?
Its not blocks from Ground Zero, its in Ground Zero. Not that this makes any difference to Ron, since he believes we brought 911 on ourselves. Is Ron a college English prefessor by chance?
If Rauf wanted to open up a storefront for prayer no one would say a word. Its the 13 story monument which will wind up being a Muslim Brotherhood embassy right at the heart of Ground Zero, with defacto diplomatic immunity that worries me. Am I allowed to say that out loud?
My sentiments exactly. Islam’s attack on the West is the problem. Why can’t these “smart” politicians see that Islam is attempting to overthrow our government. I remember reading that a leader in CAIR said he would like to see the Islamic flag flying over our Capitol.
Ron Paul - I wonder why this dimwit doesn’t object to many thousands of taxpayer dollars to finance a Mosque building tour ... but our little town can’t spend $300 on a Manger Scene? Isn’t he all about non-statist spending?
WHERE IS THE “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, EXCEPT WHEN ISLAMIST MURDERERS ARE INVOLVED?
AND WHY ISN’T WHOEVER SANCTIONED THIS TRIP FIRED - IMMEDIATELY?
I don’t curse often. But Ron Paul is making me very much want to make an exception.
what a complete moron...
All-out assault? Hmmm..
If it can be proved that Iran money is building the mosque why wouldn't the military see the mosque as an enemy emplacement? .. and take the appropriate action.
Ron Paul has no foreign policy sense when it comes to understanding Islam and the real threat it has for us and the world. Given its leaders and the whole Caliphate thing all devout muslims want to see occur, peacefully or violently, either way is okay as long as it brings about Islam all over the world.
He doesn’t understand when a muslim says he wants “peace” the only “peace” it can be is one where Islam is the only thing left and everyone is living under it. It’s not what we think of when we hear the word ‘peace’.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate.
I worry this whole issue is getting bigger than the conditions will allow and before long something is going to give. Bush will say something, anything at all, and Obama and his media darlings will start talking about that over and over until people forget that anybody else ever commented. Or somebody on the right will finally use some language which will be just a touch too strong for people and then that will be the only story and we will all be the evil haters they say we are in the public view. I can't help worrying about a Mel Gibson event. When he was called, with no fairness at all, an anti-semite just because he was making a movie with a Christian point of view it was nasty. But, he had to go off on a real anti-semite rant and prove them right, and that meant that all of the anti-christian bigots could then use that as evidence that traditional Christians just hate Jews. If somebody says something wrong right now that will be the only thing that matters in the future, and it will decide everybody on this issue. And with this going on as it is I really do worry something like that is inevitable. I think the Obama machine thinks so too.
...since he believes we brought 911 on ourselves.
Don't you? Whose fault do you think it was that crazy fanatical muslims weren't taken seriously years ago? Whose insane idea was it that love affairs with Saudi princes, and even less savoury characters, and increasing dependence on Arab oil are good for America and which have in turn been funding these morons for years? Was it somebody other than the leaders of this country?
I absolutely do not understand the fascination with American foreign policy infallibility around here. When China owns us, or begins attacking all of their neighbours, and we can do nothing because we have neither the means to fight, because we no longer maintain any resource independence, or we don't wish to anger the people who own our economy, who are you going to blame? The Chinese? The Italians? Arizona sheriffs? Give me a break. When American politicians screw up and sell us out, and do nothing to assert our dominance or sovereignty, then I blame them. Those foaming-at-the-mouth Arab dogs do exactly what rabid dogs do; they bite. And when a rabid dog bites you because you insist it is your wife and you keep getting into bed naked with it then it is your fault.
If you think we have made no policy mistakes which contributed to the eventual outcome of 9/11 then obviously you have nothing to fear from Obama. He is our President, and his foreign policy must be infallible too. If we get bombed on his watch we can't say it is his fault because that would mean we "brought it on ourselves."
“He is our President, and his foreign policy must be infallible too. If we get bombed on his watch we can’t say it is his fault because that would mean we “brought it on ourselves.”
You win the Doofus Comment of The Day Award.
Conservative Americans, unlike Socialist/Communist citizens, can distinguish between on administrations foreign policy from another.
In case you missed the news, Muslim have been waging wars on “infidels” for centuries. Using your line of reasoning, I’m sure the “infidels” and their governments are to blame.
You accuse America and her administrations of provoking Muslims, and that this is the reason for 9/11. In case you missed the obvious, any person or country that is not muslim is an enemy. A few muslim’s didn’t wake up one day and say, “Allah Akbar, I am outraged at these American dogs. Let’s bomb them!”
No, this attack was carefully orchestrated over a period of time, and it was not because we provoked Islam. It was because they hate us, and wish to wipe us off the face of the planet as they do all “infidels”.
Just as those two Canadian muslims stated, when ever Islam conquers a town or area, they build a mosque on that sight. If you believe that the NYC mosque is something else, I suggest you study the Quran.
Backward ping to #23
shibumi for President - 2012.
Conservative Americans, unlike Socialist/Communist citizens, can distinguish between on administrations foreign policy from another.
What does that have to do with anything? All of our administrations have been America. If Nixon did dumb things which contributed to future terrorist acts, or didn't do smart things which would have averted future terrorist attacks, then America did those things. If Carter did or did not do in the same manner then, again, it was America. Which administration did this or that does not matter. The fact remains that our national policies matter. We cannot go around pretending that America cannot be blamed and then argue at the same time that we are courting future attack. Either we can or we can't. It can't be both.
You accuse America and her administrations of provoking Muslims...
No, I don't think I actually said this, but rather only spoke of funding. But we have probably provoked in a sense too, though I don't know if that is avoidable. Thinking about it from that consideration I would probably say that we have provoked needlessly and that is an issue. I don't mind provoking people who matter for reasons that matter. However, fooling about with a bunch of backwards nutters because they have oil, when we already have plenty of oil ourselves that we refuse to dig up simply because we really like buying theirs, is both needless and counterproductive.
In case you missed the news, Muslim have been waging wars on infidels for centuries. Using your line of reasoning, Im sure the infidels and their governments are to blame... A few muslims didnt wake up one day and say, Allah Akbar, I am outraged at these American dogs. Lets bomb them!
You have clearly missed the point. I say that "we brought this on ourselves" insofar as what you are saying here is absolutely true. These nutters have been doing this for centuries, and didn't just wake up and decide to bomb us randomly. Instead of avoiding this and being ready for an attack, which we knew could happen, we convinced ourselves that Islam was all sweet and cuddly. We sucked up to Saudi princes and leaders in Pakistan, and in many other areas too depending on which way the winds are blowing, all of whom have been funding and working with terrorists for ages. We have refused to use our own resources and instead make certain that stupid amounts of money get funnelled over to Arabs every year. We were wilfully ignorant and unprepared and when the inevitable finally happened our response was one of refusing to admit that mistakes were made. Silly to the point of self-destructiveness.
People around here are so sensitive about "blaming America" insisting that past American foreign policy, even that of LBJ, Carter and Clinton, is infallible. They did nothing wrong. And yet I have to read day in and day out that Obama is going to get us all killed. Which is it? Can our national policy, and thereby America, influence possible attacks, or can't it? It can't be both, and knowing which administration is which is hardly relevant.
PROBABLE HOAX ALERT
I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure this is NOT written by Ron Paul.
If this was written by Ron Paul then why are the few sites that are spreading this only citing businesswire? If it is a statement by Ron Paul why isn’t it on one of his websites?
Also, when have you ever heard Ron Paul be this undiplomatic? When I got to this line my hoax meter went crazy: “This is all about hate and Islamophobia.”
“We cannot go around pretending that America cannot be blamed and then argue at the same time that we are courting future attack. Either we can or we can’t. It can’t be both.”
Your default position is:
- We were attacked by Muslims, therefore, due to our foreign relationship and funding, we are to blame.
You’re wrong. In case you failed World History, nations have been waging wars and conquering one another for centuries. Sooner or later, America would have to protect her own shores from foreign invaders.
Furthermore, Christians, Catholics, Atheists, Muslims, etc. have been fighting for turf for quite a long time.
“People around here are so sensitive about “blaming America” insisting that past American foreign policy, even that of LBJ, Carter and Clinton, is infallible. They did nothing wrong. And yet I have to read day in and day out that Obama is going to get us all killed. Which is it? Can our national policy, and thereby America, influence possible attacks, or can’t it? It can’t be both, and knowing which administration is which is hardly relevant.”
Sensitive my eye. We simply dismiss default positions such as yours, which is to say, that we brought the attacks on ourselves due to our governments negligence and foreign policy.
“infallible”? That’s totally false. I have yet to hear any American say that our government is infallible. This is you projecting due to your default position.
Those who disagree with you on these issues know that whether it was 9/11 or another point and time, we would have to engage in war on our own turf. History reveals these realities time and again.
Using cothrige logic, Daniel Pearl deserved to have his head chopped off.
In reality, Daniel Pearl was beheaded because he was not a Muslim; he was the enemy. It wasn’t because he deserved it due to his governments foreign policy, or because he was funding Islams enemies. (in case you’re missing my point by now, this is an illustration)
America is an enemy of Islam. If you are suggesting that we should cut ties with our allies, e.g. Israel, because this may provoke Islam, I say that it doesn’t matter who we are allied with. You seem to think that if we just minded our own business, Islam would leave us alone. If this is true, you are so naive and ignorant of Islams objective, and the fact that world history is quite clear on the subject of Muslims, land, and war.
(I'm going to presume that you intended to add an "n" to that last word.)
The current administration is many things, but "American" isn't one of them.
No, it was intentional, but I probably should have set it off with double-quotes to be more clear. In the context of claims that people "blame America" our past administrations have all been "America" in that sense. Their decisions have led us to where we are now, just as Obama's will in the years to come. Sadly.
An example of what I mean came to mind a minute ago. There have long been rumours that Bill Clinton had access to opportunities of capturing or eliminating bin Laden during his term. He didn't. He knew who he was, from what I have read and heard, and yet he did not take the opportunity when it presented itself, for whatever reason. If he had done something it is possible that the 9/11 attacks just might have been averted. Is he to blame for anything that happened later? Does he bear any responsibility?
It is a fact that many people around here are not behaving like conservatives. Conservatism has always been about responsibility and practical results. Our policies of dependence on foreign oil and trusting crazy dictators and muslim psychos have backfired. We should admit it and try to be smarter in the future. Just look at what such an irresponsible refusal can get you. In the case of our nation, it got us Obama. Instead of realising how important our policies are we insisted, as a country, that no past decision had any influence whatever on 9/11 and it could never have been avoided no matter what anybody did, and so we could never have a proper discussion of how important both our domestic and foreign policies are in this issue.
Ron Paul may be crazy himself, but when he said our foreign policy was to blame for 9/11, which is what he said btw, he was the only person on the dais who seemed aware of the massive responsibility inherent in being president. The liberal loon Giuliani got standing ovations for demanding he apologise, as if recognising policy errors were an offence, and proved that he and the rest were wholly unprepared for high office. The real fact is that if no decision of any president prior to 9/11 could have contributed to the events of that date then nothing Obama does now can contribute or influence any future attacks. His policies are America's, which voted for him, as much as were those of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan.
“Zatch87 - Since 2010-08-20”
I think you misspelled “Zot.”
So very basic, such a fundamental truth, and unfortunately everyone overlooks this.
Thank you for this post.
Or how about: Islam will always be pursuing endless ware against the West. We can resist or we can surrender. Anybody that can't see that is an idiot? Better?
Always good to be war of those waging ware.
You could be right. But never underestimate Paul's obtuseness when it comes to grasping the very real threats we face.
We were attacked by Muslims, therefore, due to our foreign relationship and funding, we are to blame.
Of course, because we are. We are not the only people to blame, but we do carry blame. If the people we elect enact policies which are damaging to America's interests and defence then America is responsible for that. This is a fact.
Youre wrong. In case you failed World History, nations have been waging wars and conquering one another for centuries. Sooner or later, America would have to protect her own shores from foreign invaders.
My knowledge of history is slightly better than that. What you describe here has nothing to do with reality. Following this "logic" when Obama's decisions lead to some catastrophe we can just say that it was bound to happen sooner or later. This is a position of total irresponsibility.
infallible? Thats totally false. I have yet to hear any American say that our government is infallible. This is you projecting due to your default position.
Would you prefer inerrant? If our foreign policy can never contribute or bear any responsibility for any negative events or actions which we may suffer then it must be one of them. It certainly cannot be imperfect as it can never be wrong. If it could be wrong then it could be at fault.
Using cothrige logic, Daniel Pearl deserved to have his head chopped off.
Don't be absurd. Sharing responsibility is not the same as "deserved." A woman can go to a convenience store on the bad side of town at two in the morning in her BMW and her judgement is definitely faulty, but if she is attacked she hardly deserves it. That is beyond ridiculous. It also happens that I never said anything about victims of attacks, but only America. America is a nation and corporately we are responsible for our government and its policies. We the People and all that. However, each individual's responsibility is another matter and depends entirely on who they are and what they have done.
If you are suggesting that we should cut ties with our allies, e.g. Israel, because this may provoke Islam, I say that it doesnt matter who we are allied with.
Ah, more made up stuff I see. Funded becomes provoked, brought on becomes deserved, and now all of these magically become "cut ties with ... Israel." Nice try, but I have never said a thing about Israel.
You seem to think that if we just minded our own business, Islam would leave us alone.
No, you must think it because only you said it. I certainly didn't.
Let us be clear. I say that America is responsible for 9/11 insofar as our national policies either contributed to it or allowed it. Read that carefully. I did not say that America was as or more responsible than any terrorist, but only that America is responsible. That is the conservative position. Governments don't get orders direct from God, and they make mistakes. Obama makes them all the time. One of them may directly lead to an attack, or make one possible, and if that happens then America will be at fault for that too. We shouldn't have elected him. I am realistic enough to understand that.
There is a clip I saw of Ron Paul speaking on the Alex Jones radio show and in it he expresses these basic sentiments. I never heard him say anything about Islamophobia, but he did say the argument about the mosque was a distraction and that conservatives should have argued for its being built on the basis of property rights and freedom of speech. He definitely seemed to be on the side of supporting the mosque. I listened for only minute or so and he may have nuanced the points somewhat later, but he did take this basic position. I actually am inclined to think this reflects his position.
A Yahoo! search of the second paragraph yeilds 36 exact hits.
The fourth paragraph (searched in its entirety) yeilds 6,190 hits.
At that rate, I have no trouble believing that Ron Paul said it.
What I do doubt is the veracity of a poster who signed up today, to make this one post:
I’m pretty sure this article mostly reflects his views but I’m just saying I haven’t heard him throw around words like Islamophobe and sunshine patriot before.
It’s on CNBC now...i guess he did write it.
Seems a strange way to introduce yourself to FreeRepublic.
In Ron Paul threads, it’s always worth noting he was the one and only Republican admired by Cindy Sheehan. She endorsed Paul over Obama, which answers pretty much every question raised in these threads.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Cindy Sheehan endorses Ron Paul over Barack Obama
Sheehan: I dont want to even discuss who is likely to be the Republican nominee, because besides having little foreign policy difference between any of them and Hillary, anyone of them would be a complete disaster on matters of war and peace, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (Tx).
It shouldn’t be a suprise that Cindy would endorse Ron Paul. Cindy is/was the lover of Lew Rockwell. Lew is a big supporter of Ron Paul and was once one of Paul’s principal staffers in the Congress. Lew supports all of Paul’s campaigns and is also a big antiwar/blame America/truther.
Unfortunately....this is what keeps more conservatives from voting for Dr Paul. You cannot allow a shrine to Islamic Terror be built near where Muslims killed 3000 Americans.
Your property rights end when they interfere with someone else’s
Here’s a video of the “diplomatic’ Ron Paul:
Ron Paul has publically said that the CIA has accomplished a coup against America and needs to be taken out:
A direct quote from this conference is as such:
(January 20, 2010) House Rep. Ron Paul says the CIA has in effect carried out a “coup” against the US government, and the intelligence agency needs to be “taken out.”
Speaking to an audience of like-minded libertarians at a Campaign for Liberty regional conference in Atlanta this past weekend, the Texas Republican said: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries...”
This is a war against the islam-nazis... Not all of Islam..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.