subscribe or follow us:                    

Ground Zero Mosque & Property Rights Only When Convenient | Rand Paul

10 comments
Ophthalmologist Rand Paul Ron Paul son Rand jo...
Image via Wikipedia

Remember that little stink a few months back about Rand Paul taking property rights over civil rights? Well it seems he has completely abandoned property rights now. Over at Liberty Maven there is an interview with Rand Paul. When asked about the Mosque Rand says:

While this is a local matter that will be decided by the people of New York, I do not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero. In my opinion, the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th.

So it’s a local matter eh Rand? Let’s see what Rand was saying a few months ago, shall we?

“I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners [what to do]. I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anyone from your restaurant — but at the same time I do believe in private ownership. And I do think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets public funding. And that’s mostly what the civil rights act was about.”

I guess all the apology was sincere after those statements, because Rand is sure as hell not interested in the property rights of Muslims. Apparently he does not even take into account the private property right matter in this issue.

What’s interesting is that we see essentially the same concept where he takes the side of white culturalism both times, using the property rights concept only when it favors this white christian culturalism. What is even more baffling is that he is supposed to be some free market champion. I call Bullshit. Property rights until I don’t like what you do with your property. Or property rights until I want to tell you what to do with your property.

Or is it that property rights only apply to White Christians in the good ol’ U.S. of A…

That’s right, we want property rights and liberty for people who look and act like us! Fuck your liberty! Liberty for whitey! Boy it’s good to be a fucking white male christian in the U.S. ain’t it? Good lookin’ out Dirty Old Uncle Sam. But we don’t talk about that, it pisses off conservatives who love their color blind racism. We all know anyone who acknowledges the culturalism or racism they cling to is themselves a racist.

Black sheep report put it best in their article The Choice Regarding World Trade Center Mosque – Liberty or Emotion

The anger is very clear.  People do not want the mosque built no matter what. There is even a political advertisement for a Carl Palladino, a candidate for Governor in NY, saying that if elected he will use eminent domain to purchase the land and make it a war memorial.

However, stopping the building of the Muslim mosque is not the right thing to do…

Liberty means that no person or group has a higher claim on your person or private property than you.  This goes for everyone.  So often we see the left electing an official to a position to use its power to infringe on a one set of people to the benefit of the other. For instance, the left will elect people to congress so that they can take the taxpayer’s earning and give it to others. This may be welfare, government health care, public sector unions or even bailouts.  This is a violation of liberty and amounts to nothing more than wealth if you or I did the same kind of thing.  So, if liberty is the most important thing in a free society people must resist the urge to ask the government to be exercise power on its behalf….

People are free to think and feel what they want.  So, you may be mad as hell at the mosque being built near the World Trade Center site.  You do not have to like it.  However, you cannot let your emotions betray your principles.

Benjamin Franklin is often cited for saying those who are willing to give up a little liberty for security deserve neither.  He is absolutely correct.  Therefore this is also correct. Those who are willing to compromise the principles of liberty for the sake of emotional satisfaction or ideology do not deserve liberty either.

We heard the opposition to ObamaCare, which I joined in on. I opposed it all they way. I live in Missouri and I voted for Proposition C. There we had the state trying to force people to turn their property over for services they may or may not want. This is in the form of money they have told us what to spend it on. The same problem is with property rights and the smoking issue. If an individual wishes to have patrons smoke in the establishment that the individual owns it is his property no one should have any right to tell him he can not have smokers on that property. Now all the voices that used to agree with these basic property rights concepts have jumped ship. They want to oppose the property rights of someone who wishes to build a structure they do not like. The hypocrisy of the right is showing.

I’m tired of every conservative talking about ‘religious freedom’ as if it is the core of the opposition to their statist stance in this case. No, it’s the same thing they claimed made you form your Tea Parties and oppose your ObamaCare.

Of course the conservatives only want property rights when it benefits them. Culturalism trumps everything else on the right.  If some ‘greater good’ justifies the power of a state over property rights then does the greater good not justify ObamaCare? This shows conservatives only use terms like Free Market and Property Rights when they don’t get what they want from the state. These statists are no different from any other statist.

I don’t want to hear another statist say they love free markets and property rights and then turn around and oppose them. It’s redundant and frankly it’s bullshit. Critical thinking 101 should be taught to every conservative, but I’m afraid it will go over their heads.

Of course I’m forgetting this is holy ground. This ground is sacred. This ground is for strip clubs and McDonalds! No seriously, see what else is in this holy ground here.  Now not only has most of the right contradicted themselves and proved themselves fickle, but they look absolutely ridiculous claiming porn and big macs are some holy ground. Should I take off my shoes when I go to get my express BBQ like Moses at the burning bush? Perhaps I should give a sacrifice as I go to worship at New York Dolls Gentlemen’s Club to watch the tits and clits.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • Tim

    You clearly misunderstand what point Rand Paul is making. He said, “I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners [what to do],” and then, “I do not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero.”

    You have severely misinterpreted these statements to mean that his lack of support means he supports a legal opposition. That is incorrect. Read the quotes closer, for meaning this time. He does not support TELLING (legally forcing) the group in question to not build the mosque, however he also doesn’t support them CHOOSING to build the mosque.

    Would you have still written this column if he would have juxtaposed those quotes on his own, by saying, “I don’t like telling business owners what to do, but I don’t support their decision to build this here.”? Because I don’t see anything racist or hypocritical about believing the LAW should have limitations but that we can and should make SOCIAL decisions outside the scope of the law’s oversight. Turning over our ability to deal with others as individuals to a stark, mindless legal framework of must and must not has done severe harm to our society.

    • http://www.remnantculture.com/ Remnant Culture

      I was going to post a comment, but Tim’s reactions were the same ones I had.

    • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

      Tim, I have never said I oppose law having restrictions. I have no love whatsoever for law or government. If Paul was going to bring up free market concepts the time to do so is when people are making an effort to infringe on someones property rights. We see some making threats of eminent domain in this case.

      I think the point is that he only mentions any property right or free market concept when it suits a certain culture that is the dominant right wing republican white christian culture.

      I was truly hoping to hear him stand up for this group building their community center. The absence of a consistent stance is what is telling. If he stood there and stated that liberty and property rights are also fro those who want to build a community center by a strip club just as it is for the white racist lunch counter and countered that with him believing it is a bad idea I would have never written the article.

      I had little to say on his previous statements mostly because he did have something to stand on which is property rights and basic free market concepts. I do think his previous statements were just horrible, and I even wrote an article speaking of how hypocritical the state embracing minarchism makes one bringing them to the point where they must justify their support of the state in the cases they choose to support the state. All I had to say after Rands’ First comments can be found here: http://www.gonzotimes.com/2104/the-libertarian-statist/

  • Tim

    You clearly misunderstand what point Rand Paul is making. He said, “I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners [what to do],” and then, “I do not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero.”

    You have severely misinterpreted these statements to mean that his lack of support means he supports a legal opposition. That is incorrect. Read the quotes closer, for meaning this time. He does not support TELLING (legally forcing) the group in question to not build the mosque, however he also doesn't support them CHOOSING to build the mosque.

    Would you have still written this column if he would have juxtaposed those quotes on his own, by saying, “I don't like telling business owners what to do, but I don't support their decision to build this here.”? Because I don't see anything racist or hypocritical about believing the LAW should have limitations but that we can and should make SOCIAL decisions outside the scope of the law's oversight. Turning over our ability to deal with others as individuals to a stark, mindless legal framework of must and must not has done severe harm to our society.

  • http://www.remnantculture.com/ Remnant Culture

    I was going to post a comment, but Tim's reactions were the same ones I had.

  • Blah

    The writer is a fucking idiot.

    Keep tying to play the race card… IT MIGHT WORK SOMEDAY DERP!

  • Blah

    The writer is a fucking idiot.

    Keep tying to play the race card… IT MIGHT WORK SOMEDAY DERP!

  • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

    Tim, I have never said I oppose law having restrictions. I have no love whatsoever for law or government. If Paul was going to bring up free market concepts the time to do so is when people are making an effort to infringe on someones property rights. We see some making threats of eminent domain in this case.

    I think the point is that he only mentions any property right or free market concept when it suits a certain culture that is the dominant right wing republican white christian culture.

    I was truly hoping to hear him stand up for this group building their community center. The absence of a consistent stance is what is telling. If he stood there and stated that liberty and property rights are also fro those who want to build a community center by a strip club just as it is for the white racist lunch counter and countered that with him believing it is a bad idea I would have never written the article.

    I had little to say on his previous statements mostly because he did have something to stand on which is property rights and basic free market concepts. I do think his previous statements were just horrible, and I even wrote an article speaking of how hypocritical the state embracing minarchism makes one bringing them to the point where they must justify their support of the state in the cases they choose to support the state. All I had to say after Rands' First comments can be found here: http://www.gonzotimes.com/2104/the-libertarian-…

  • http://www.rippdemup.com/ RiPPa

    Now this… is an awesome post that hopefully peels the wool off the eyes of many.

  • http://www.rippdemup.com/ RiPPa

    Now this… is an awesome post that hopefully peels the wool off the eyes of many.