Ron Paul om Moskeen ved Ground Zero i NY.

Sjældent at vi går ind i værdidebatten og da endnu mere sjældent vi gør det fra et internationalt perspektiv. Men vi gør i dag, en undtagelse.

Man kan sige meget om den samlet pakke: Ron Paul. Men han er en spændende provokatør og i hans selskab bliver debatterne altid af yderst princielt karakter. Han er i den grad en politiker, som tør bide til bollen. Men er aldrig i tvivl om , man er enig eller uenig i hans udsagn. Han skærer stort alle mellemlag væk. Her er ingen gustne vurderinger omkring, hvad der vil går hjem i hans vælgerkrops. Paul er tidligere præsidentkandidat for det liberitanske parti ( 1988) og profileret kandidat i det replublikanske primærvalg 2008 og mange årig medlem af kongressen ( US house kreds 14 texas, siden 1997). Ron Paul er hårdkogt økonomisk/fiscal konservativ ( staten økonomisk ud alt samfundsliv og væk med al skat, stort set) og værdipolitisk er han 100 % loyal mod den amerikanske forfatning. Kendt som Doctor No. Han er læge ( fødsel) og siger nej til alt, som han synes går imod forfatningen. En mand, der nok skulle tale til, mangt et brushoved, på den hjemmelige nationalkonservative side. Men det er nok, at håbe på for meget.

Han har udsendt et statement i forbindelse men den hårde debat, om et kommende byggeri af en moske i nærheden af det gamle Worldtrade-center. Om ikke andet kan danske politikere, lære af dette udsagn , hvad det vil sige, at have en overbevisning. Vi tager det hele med, for det er enestående godt og og argumenterende hele vejen.

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
Citat slut

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.


Ja det er nemt at stå fast på de grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, som f.eks at kunne købe sig en grund og bruge den som man vil, hvis det kun skal gælde folk, som ligner en selv.

Ron Paul har formentlig lagt sig ud med stort alle ledende kræfter i GOP igen, men det kan han formentligt, leve med

Henrik Hansen