Posted on 08/20/2010 2:39:14 PM PDT by mnehring
As if we needed anymore proof of Ron Paul’s anti-American treachery — and no, I am not speaking of his inclusion in the Democrats’ list of favorite Republicans (though it’s also quite telling), — he’s finally waded into the Ground Zero mosque controversy where — unsurprisingly — he’s chalked it all up to yet another conspiracy theory, fomented by those war-lovin’ neo-cons:
“I think it’s a big distraction, a grand distraction from the real issues… To me it should have been a grand opportunity, and you really touched on the opportunity, because it’s really a property rights issue, and who owns the property? And it’s also a civil liberties issue. It’s a freedom of speech issue… Property rights and civil rights are one and the same… drives the neo-cons nuts… I don’t believe for a minute that the, quote, religion of Islam is our enemy.”
Really, Ron? And I suppose Al-Qaeda is just a CIA fantasy, too?
For the record, the majority of Americans and politicians who oppose the mosque fully understand the constitutional right to build it. Then again, most of us also understand that Islam is a strident political ideology wrapped up in the cloak of religion, and that jihadists committed an act of war against the United States on September 11, 2001 — not the United States government — all in the name of Islam. Further, understanding the history of Cordoba, we are cognizant of the fact that such a mosque is nothing short of a monument to their bloody victory over the “Great Satan” and 3,000 of its citizens on 9/11.
I know its tough for you libertarians — much like your foreign policy kindred spirits, liberals — to place a moral judgment on anything, but out of respect for 9/11′s grieving families, it would be nice if you’d grant them some deference on this emotionally supercharged, morally reprehensible issue. It would also be refreshing if you’d actually give your country the benefit of the doubt, instead of blaming it for the existence of a so-called religion that preaches death to infidels, practices pedophilia, commits unspeakable crimes against women, and actively engages in a worldwide, genocidal movement with the ultimate goal of imposing a worldwide Muslim Caliphate.
In short, since you’re so fond of conspiracy theories, maybe you can believe in one that’s actually true: Global Jihad. Then temper your constitutional remarks about the Ground Zero mosque with some intelligence and real compassion for your own countrymen — especially those who lost everything on 9/11.
We’re talking about the common understanding of a word or a political position. The meaning of words is defined by what people think they mean.
We’re not talking about an objective fact, like the harm you could get from jumping out of an airplane.
Obama’s popularity is crashing because he’s bringing too much government.
The tea parties are not about Islam. The tea parties exist because people do not want Obama’s Big Government.
There is no more objective fact than what a person is. With the advent of our understanding of DNA, there simply isn’t even a shadow of a doubt about this scientifically.
And the first premise of our country is that the purpose of government is to protect the God-given right to life of every person.
And the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments make it crystal clear that this is not optional. It is imperative.
And his support for the 9/11 Ground Zero Mosque just went into the Memory Hole.
What are you talking about?
When did Obama express his support for that? About when?
His numbers have been extremely low for a long time. This mosque thing has no effect on his popularity. Obama has been unpopular and will stay unpopular until after November at some time, if his popularity ever recovers at all. Depends on the results of the elections and what Republicans do if they win.
You're kidding, right?
Obama Strongly Endorses Islam Center Near 9/11 Site
Obama/Paul 2012
So, August 13 of this year?
I wasn’t saying he didn’t, I was asking when exactly?
Ok, this was a week ago.
Has Obama’s popularity gone down much in the last week? Did I miss a recent poll?
His favorables were in the low 40%. Is he in the 30s now?
If his favorables were in the 30s, I might believe that the Islam mosque thing might have something to do with it.
An even bigger story is the recent PEW poll that indicates that the number of people who think Obama is Christian is under 50%. The 18% who think that he’s a Muslim is also noteworthy, but the 34% who think that he’s a Christian is more noteworthy. Left by itself, the 18% Muslim figure could imply a 82% Christian, but the 34% figure makes it clear that 66% don’t think he’s a Christian.
Also, by a not quite 2-1 margin, Americans think Obama is Christian, rather than Muslim.
Based on the White House reaction, I would think that those were pretty shocking results.
“Peace is more than just the absence of war. True peace is justice, true peace is freedom. And true peace dictates the recognition of human rights.” —Ronald Reagan
Ok, so, there you’re right to some extent. Certainly the article does attribute the decline to the mosque controversy.
I didn’t look close and see where he was before he was at 41%
41% does seem low for a Gallup. Certainly, being in favor of a mosque at or near ground zero is not going to get votes. I’m not sure that being against it is going to get votes either, but if you had to choose one, being against is better.
I not suggesting this, but, if we wanted to be really serious about Islam, and really protect ourselves, we could kick every Muslim out of the country. Get every last illegal alien Muslim. And then say “no more Muslims”. And then once we get the Muslim problem under control, the population stabilized or declining, then we would see whether or not we want to just kick them out of the country. I’m not suggesting this. I don’t think we should do this and it’s clearly unconstitutional. So, we have to have endless wars in the middle east and unlimited immigration of muslims into the US?
Instead of kick all the Muslims out and no wars?
I read the article. I agree with much of that. I will say that I don’t think Islam is that much of a threat. However, I definitely do not want any Sharia Law here in the US, or anything like that.
Having a lot of Muslims around and having a bunch of crazy PC laws could lead to a bad result. It probably would be easiest right off to get rid of the crazy laws. Muslims might demand some crazy rule, and we can say no. But its good to be talking about not encouraging more Muslims here in the US. I’ve heard that Muslims have made some parts of Europe quite unpleasant. We don’t want that here in the US.
damn what a joke...and from TX...you guys can do better
Does Objectivism support Libertarianism?
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
[Ayn Rand, “Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, September 1971]
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.
[Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]
“Liberty is not a moral end. It’s the means to the moral end.”
to what moral end?
Then I guess you would have liked our involvement in WWII.. I hate to say it, but putting troops on our border is not going to solve the Islam-nazi problem.. I prefer that we fight wars overseas than here..
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.