I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul per se, but he makes excellent points in his article and kudos to him for having the courage to go against the prevailing popular sentiment on the Ground Zero Mosque issue. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul690.html Demagoguing the Mosque by Ron Paul Recently by Ron Paul: The Cycle of Violence in Afghanistan 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, âNero fiddled while Rome burned.â 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 âfiddling 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 âsensitiveâ requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from âground zero.â 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 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, weâre supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems. The nineteen suicide bombers didnât 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 donât want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be âsensitiveâ 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 â 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, donât 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 â 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-conservativeâs aggressive wars. The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque â a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law â in order to look tough against Islam. This is all about hate and Islamaphobia. We now have an epidemic of âsunshine patriotsâ on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as thereâs no controversy and nobody is offended. Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.