I rarely copy and paste... but this is great
 

From Ron Paul






"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 from 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-conservative’s 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."

Explains why Ron Paul will never be POTUS .
So who declared war on us anyways....Jews,Baptist, Catholics?
Soccer players...what a bunch of crap

Well said. The more I learn about this "controversy" the more it just highlights ignorance and hypocrisy.

-spence

Bingo

Quote of the century.

I hope JohnR archives the server and FAST.

-spence

The fox's bushy tail is doing a lot of overstimulation, a whole lot of brain holding.

smoke and mirrors....:uhuh:

Harry reid is a neo-con?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think he implied that. Rather that the controversy was ignited by neo-conservatives who see a broader enemy in Islam.

Reid is just jumping on the bandwagon, probably in an attempt to save his campaign. I've yet to hear a reasoned response, other than that he just feels that way.

-spence

you cant "ignite" something unless there is something to burn. People have stong emotions on this and we should have a national discussion. Paul's article is a mish-mash of thoughts that he tries to pull together, with the attitude of "I know more than those dumb americans". The data doesnt support his rant - Most americans are against the war(s) but also against the mosque. As much as the media and some politicians want to make it - there is no big anti-muslim backlash in this country. People live day to day without issue. As we come upon the 10th anniversary, its natural for the emotions to be high.

The point being that plans for the Cordoba House have been underway for some time...but the story was made National on purpose, to serve a political purpose.

And as we've discussed, people seem to have some real misconceptions about the Iman and the intent of his proposed community center.

There's a lot of Islamic resentment in this country. The comments you see right here on this board are a good sample.

What's ironic is that people (including yourself) are always asking, where are the moderates? where are the Islamic leaders condemning radicalism?

Well, the Imam in question just happens to be one of those people, and he's being made out by the Right Wing to be one of the hijackers himself.

-spence

In the 2005 lecture the "moderate" imam said this about our country:


"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations."


The "half-million Iraqi children died because of US sanctions" lie was also a favorite of both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein who both used it in their hate-America propaganda. This whopper of a myth was first dreamed up by Saddam Hussein era Iraqi officials, in order to smear America and sway world opinion against the sanctions imposed on Saddam to stop him from expanding his "biological, chemical, nuclear, and missile-based weapons systems."

A detailed expose done by Reason magazine back 2002 debunked this lie and explained the origin of this myth. The article documented the deeply flawed studies that gave birth to this falsehood and the lack of objective and independent data to backup the outrageous claims.


"The idea that sanctions in Iraq have killed half a million children (or 1 million, or 1.5 million, depending on the hysteria of the source) took root in 1995 and 1996, on the basis of two transparently flawed studies, one inexplicable doubling of the studies' statistics, and a non-denial on 60 Minutes.

In August 1995, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) gave officials from the Iraqi Ministry of Health a questionnaire on child mortality and asked them to conduct a survey in the capital city of Baghdad. On the basis of this five-day, 693-household, Iraq-controlled study, the FAO announced in November that "child mortality had increased nearly five fold" since the pre-sanctions era. As embargo critic Richard Garfield, a public health specialist at Columbia University, wrote in his own comprehensive 1999 survey of under-5 deaths in Iraq, "The 1995 study's conclusions were subsequently withdrawn by the authors....Notwithstanding the retraction of the original data, their estimate of more than 500,000 excess child deaths due to the embargo is still often repeated by sanctions critics."

In March 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its own report on the humanitarian crisis. It reprinted figures -- provided solely by the Iraqi Ministry of Health -- showing that a total of 186,000 children under the age of 5 died between 1990 and 1994 in the 15 Saddam-governed provinces. According to these government figures, the number of deaths jumped nearly 500 percent, from 8,903 in 1990 to 52,905 in 1994."

I understand that there are many hours of Rauf's greatest hits about to be made public...maybe that will help clear up the misconceptions that all of the "Metasticized Islamophobes" are under....isn't that how Daisy put it?

I've heard a number of actual "moderate" muslims recently point out that Rauf speaks with two faces and they have quite specifically pointed out associations and affiliations that are more than curious...Andy McCarthy has written extensively and is one who would know...his dear friend and Rabbi apparently doubts that he even has the organization to build the mosque...which would really make you wonder what this is really all about...

I'm not sure I'd trust Reason Manazine (whatever that is???) as my source of record, but the claims of increased infant mortality associated with UN sanctions didn't come from Bin Laden, they came from Unicef.

And the quote, in context of the discussion, is entirely appropriate. The fact that you don't buy the argument the US has innocent blood on our hands is moot. The Islamic world does believe it and that's critical to understanding how we see one another.

If you expect a "moderate" to only see your side of things you're not only being short-sighted, but contributing to the problem.

-spence

spence is right, lets end this silly debate and get back to the real topics at hand. I just went to CNN and this was on the "top political stories"

Obamas choose French-American for dinner out at Martha's Vineyard

so, thoughts?

French-American... that restaurant must've faced quite the quagmire when the whole "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast" debacle was going on.

Perhaps one of the lowest Congressional moments...EVER.

-spence

Don't open a Pandora's Box! We could spend days on some of the lowest things that have taken place in Congress...

YouTube - Senator Barbara Boxer: "Don't Call Me Ma'am" - General Michael Walsh

Good point.

-spence

In recent history, no question.

UPDATE: I'm not sure I'd still trust them as the final word on the issue, but it's a good website I wasn't aware of :soon:

-spence

I'd suggest that a so-called "moderate" who is publicly parroting the vile lies and distortions of thugs, dictators and terrorists is contributing far more to "the problem"...

So Unicef reports on children killed, bin Laden references it and you twist this statistic into "vile lies and distortions of thugs, dictators and terrorists" than anyone else is forbidden to repeat lest they be forever linked as if they perpetrated 9/11 themselves.

Nice.

I'm sure they'll find other terrible references the imam has made, as he and bin Laden are both Muslims they're bound to find exactly what they're looking for.

I'd happen to agree that UN sanctions and US actions have probably killed a lot of innocent Iraqi's, and that this causes animosity directed at us from an Islamic perspective. Does this make me a terrorist as well?

-spence

actually the Recovery and Reinvestment act and the Health Care Bill would top it.

I would disagree.

he parroted gross, inflammatory distortions years after they were shown to be inaccurate... I haven't referred to anyone as a terrorist in this issue...the type of inflammatory rhetoric based on flasehoods from a supposed "moderate" muslim leader can hardly result in bridge building in either direction...

what he said was quite clear and you seem to be going through great contortions to explain it away..

A terrorist no, a terrorist sympathizer yes. The way I see it, the sanctions were brought on by a mad man dictator.
Damn, Spence, you have argued on many, many occasions that the sanctions were working. Not to mention that we should keep sanctions in place for Iran.
And while we are at it...how about the US lives lost in Bosnia or the first Iraq war to save Muslims. Does that effect the "Islamic perspective"?????

There's a frigging shock:biglaugh:

The "Ground Zero mosque" debate is about tolerance?and a whole lot more. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

Hitchens has a good article at Slate if anyone is interested

Meh.

By Reason Magazine? Perhaps he didn't have a subscription, or his could have gotten wet in the mail...that does sometimes happen.

A real number is certainly debate able and probably impossible to accurately count, but even in the same article you quoted from the author admits at least 100,000 dead from sanctions since 1990. There have been several studies and they all seem to indicate that UN sanctions were very hard on the Iraqi people.

But if this is all you really have then I'm quite dissapointed. To ignore the whole of the imam and his wife's works at the expense of a single statistic demonstrates a total lack of willingness to even accept that he may be a tolerant and moderate Muslim, simply because he doesn't fit what you think a moderate should be.

Really sad.

You've asserted "guilt by association" which is even worse.

Again, I'm not sure you have a clue what a moderate Muslim looks like at the International level, or would even accept one if you did.

No it's called being reasonable, I'm practicing to get a monthly slot at Reason.com.

-spence

Based on what? This is the "go to" guy by even Bush on Islamic outreach issues.

I've argued that the sanctions were very effective at keeping Saddam's military ambitions under control. Certainly they came at a high price...

I believe the context I've usually used is that in 2003 we were under little pressure to depose Saddam as Bush insisted as there was no immediate threat...because of the sanctions.

It does to some degree. I'm not sure Desert Storm was seen by Muslims as the US out to save them, but more as hired guns by the Saudis. Also, I don't think people think of specific events as much but they look at a pattern over time. Once measure of good faith may be lost if it's not followed up, and in a pretty dysfunctional region to begin with...this isn't always easy.

Iran is another good example. The US has been meddling in Iranian affairs for 50 years and yet we wonder why there's a lack of trust! Wether we had good reasons for specific actions may justify some of our own actions, but we can't ignore that there's another perspective that STILL INFLUENCES POLICY AND PERCEPTION TODAY.

-spence

Sad that the "go to" Muslim thinks we are as guilty as the terrorist, as do you.



"we can't ignore that there's another perspective that STILL INFLUENCES POLICY AND PERCEPTION TODAY."......yes, a hate for all other religions to the point where you are willing to kill your own. Guess what religions group that is???????

Please post the quote. I think know the one you're talking about and that's clearly not what he meant...

-spence

On the surface this seems like a tragic oversimplification. Please explain...

-spence

I agree 100% with Ron Paul.

The muslims do have have some responsibility to use discretion though. They wouldn't allow a neo-nazi recruitment center to be built next to an Auschewitz memorial.

This place is 7 blocks away from ground zero. That's not 'right nextdoor'
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the fact seems to be that discretion has been used.

Instead of a Terror Recruitment Center as all Muslims would naturally desire :rolleyes:, they planned to offer fitness equipment, a prayer area, space for the performing arts and even a kitchen for cooking classes.

I'm sure ScottW will argue the kitchen is really a "duel use facility" that could easily be reconfigured for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons.

-spence

Or a temple in Mecca.*

*talking point 9 from the daily "How to be a bigot" email

My God Spence...it sounds so wondeful.:love: cooking classes ? Where do I sign up? :uhuh: