Ron Paul- Stop The Demagoguery About The NYC Mosque

It's been said that once you get beyond the rhetoric, there really isn't that much difference between a true conservative and a true liberal. Both have the same objectives in mind, but are taking different paths.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is the Godfather of the New Libertarianism, a lifelong Republican, and probably the closest heir to the Republicanism of Barry Goldwater. And on Friday (August 20) he issued a statement regarding the controversy of the Islamic Center that is scheduled to be built two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan.

We hear the term...."What would Jesus do?". In his statement on the "mosque" controversy Congressman Paul gives us an example of "What would Thomas Jefferson say?".

Below, his statement, which can be found at RonPaul.com.

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-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.

I may not agree with Ron Paul on most things, but I'll never question his love of country or his adherence to principles. Well done, and better said than anyone regarding this two week old contrived controversy.

Late Addition! Below, videos of Ron Paul's decision to back the right to build the Islamic center, with Lawrence O'Donnell on COUNTDOWN.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

To see the "anti-mosque" protesters surround and intimidate an African American man wearing a tight fitting cap because they assumed he was a Muslim (he isn't)....it just goes to prove............

The first three letters in "assumed" are A-S-S.

Ayn Rand- Author, Atheist, Elitist, Icon of the Right.....and Fan of a Child Killer?

Commentary
Yesterday afternoon my cousin Terri posted a link on FACEBOOK about the 20th century writer- philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-82) and her fascination with William Hickman, a sadistic murderer who was executed in 1928 for the horrific killing of 12 year old Marian Parker. What makes this relationship relevant to today and to modern American politics is because of the resurgence of Rand's philosophy of objectivism, and Rand's popularity among modern American conservatives and Libertarians, among them Alan Greenspan, Clarence Thomas, Bob Barr, and Ron Paul. President Ronald Reagan was said to be an admirer of Rand's work.

Initially I was going to just provide a link to the page on AlterNet that told the story of Rand and Hickman, but then I became involved in spending sometime in reacquainting myself with Ayn Rand and objectivism. So for about six to eight hours on Saturday I read about Rand, and read more about her philosophy and her works of fiction, including The Fountainhead and what may have been her defining work, Atlas Shrugged. In recent years sales of Atlas Shrugged have seen a spike because her views of laissez-faire captalism, and of the ability of "man the producer" to lift himself higher to a full potential has appeal to those on the political right, and has been adopted by some in the "Tea Party" movement as a manifesto. And while doing my research I came across the original article about Rand-Hickman on The Exiled website. If you go to that version of the story you can see photos of Tea Party members carrying signs in support of Ayn Rand and her philosophy.

What began as a short linkup for this blog became a weekend long mini research project to to rediscover Ayn Rand- just who was she and what were her beliefs? And I struck gold with some amazing videos she made in her lifetime. So I watched her live performance with Phil Donahue from 1980, as well as an interview she did with a University of Michigan professor (circa 1960)....and I took notes; lots and lots of them.



Ayn Rand was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum Tsarist Russia in 1905. Her family could be called non-observant Jews. After the Revolution of 1917 Rand attended the University of Petrograd, majoring in history, but also studying the philosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, and her greatest influence, Friedrich Nietzsche. Authors she admired greatly were Edmond Rostand and Victor Hugo, among others. Rand emigrated to the United States in 1926, saying she was going to visit relatives in America....she never returned to the Soviet Union. She adopted her new name and became a naturalized American citizen in 1931.

Rand met director Cecil B. DeMille and worked as an extra in his silent epic about the life of Christ, King of Kings. She subsequently became a screenwriter, which opened the door to her writing works of fiction and non fiction. She married actor Frank O'Connor in 1929.

The basis of Rand's objectivism can be summed as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

This concept, and her demand for limited government and laissez-faire capitalism, has helped to lead to a resurgenece in interest in Rand by conservatives and some in the "Tea Party" movement, who see the actions of the Obama administration as being too much government interference, with the Wall Street and bank bailouts, and the Obama administration's attempt to reform health care.

What I find interesting is the "cafeteria approach" conservatives have as far as Rands objectivism....Catholics who are seen to "pick and choose"doctrine they can adhere to are sometimes referred to as "Cafeteria Catholics". And Rand's conservative fans, it seems, are "guilty" of the same thing....which may be a poor choice of words because belief in objectivism may leave the user void of any sense of guilt. But I'll explain what I mean momentarily.

Objectivism is a belief that man lives to be a producer, and in doing so he must stay on course to reach that goal to obtain his individual happiness. Its up to the individual to find his own destiny and happiness.

But here are some problems....and here's why Rand and objectivism have strange bedfellows with the modern conservative movement.

Objectivism and atheism; Rand was an atheist almost from the time she was a child, and remained one throughout her life. To her organized religion and belief in a God were illogical and dangerous. A video interview posted at the Ayn Rand Institute website from the time of Atlas Shrugged's publication shows her referring to people who lead by faith as "witch doctors". She decried organized religion as "mysticism", and found those who practice faith as being weak and illogical.

There is such irony here, especially when President Obama took so much heat from conservatives for an inviting an atheist group to the White House, while some of the same critics believe Rand's economic philosophy but turn a blind eye towards her atheism and disdain for practitioners of religion. I wonder how many of these "Neo-Randians" have actually taken a look at her whole life and philosophy? And just how many "TheoCons" would hold her in such esteem had they known of her atheism?

Objectivism rejects altruism; This is a part of Rand's philosophy that caused me the most problem. "Altruism" is the concept of living a life to do good for others. Rand's objectiveism incorporates the belief in egoism- doing what is in one's best self interest. I thought about the altruism we see in everyday life- we sometimes do what's best for our friends and family, because of our love for them. Cops and firefighters risk their lives for complete strangers everyday. Teachers instruct children of adults they don't know, public defenders make sure those accused of crimes get a fair shake in court. The men and women of our armed forces fight and sometimes die because they want to serve something that is bigger than them.

And then I thought about the World Trade Center on 9/11, and all of the first responders who ran into an inferno to save lives, knowing they may not come back....and those countless people who have sprung to aid Haiti after the destructive earthquakes.

There's something noble and right and ethical about altruism....and not so for the "me first" doctrine of Ayn Rand's ethical egoism, a theory that tells you to leave your family and friends if you think they are a hindrance to you.

Its disturbing...its wrong....its unAmerican.

And to my religious friends, its about as un-Christian a concept as I've ever seen or heard.

The development of "professional intellectuals"- The Republicans and conservatives are often accused of being "anti-intellectual". You may or may not agree. But in the same interview from the Ayn Rand Institute Rand talks about developing "professional intellectuals"...I suppose these "Pro's' would have been selected on the basis of how closely they agree with Ayn Rand.

Liberals are often labeled by the Right as "the Elite".

But I have yet to see the anyone else other than Ayn Rand call for a special category of our work force who's only purpose would be to tell us all how stupid and nonsensical the rest of us are. But I'm sure Ann Coulter likes Rand, so how elite can she be?

Below, I embedded the five part episode of DONAHUE featuring Rand in 1980, about two years before her death. Its an interesting glimpse into a controversial mind. I found her to be chilly, distant, and- not surprisingly- more than a little disturbing. Her answer about what to do with the disabled and mentally challenged (whom she referred to as "retarded") are close to being fascistic.....and actually display her belief in Charles Darwin and survival of the fittest.

Also, look at how she handles criticism from the audience members- there was no room for descent in her ranks- my way or the highway.

My bottom line with Ayn Rand....while attempting to be a philosophical and intellectual liberator of man, she became an intolerant judge of all that was around her. To find her being an icon and hero of many in a political movement is more than a little disturbing to say the least.

We're all Americans. And we should be made of better stuff.













For more information about Ayn Rand, see the Ayn Rand Institute.

Below, the link for the story of Ayn Rand's alleged admiration for the early 20th century serial killer William Hickman.


READ MORE.....from | Books | AlterNet