There really is only one issue: should a private property owner have to ask the government’s permission to use his own property in whatever way he wants? The answer is no. If you said yes, have fun on that slippery slope down towards the government dictating every move you make.

That mosque site is none of “our” business. If the owner(s) wants to build a mosque, they can build a mosque. If they want to build a church, they can build a church. If they want to leave it vacant, so be it. It’s nobody’s business but the owners’. If the people in the surrounding area don’t like it, they have ways of making life miserable for the tenants. It’s called social pressure. And it’s much more desirable than government fiat at the point of a gun. Maybe, the people living near the mosque put up posters saying “Get Out!” or something like that. I don’t know. I think that would be a bad idea, but then again, I don’t live near the 9/11 site, so I don’t know what their mindset is. The point is, that’s up to them if they want to be that way. But, I prefer that to giving away that social power to the state, never to be reclaimed. Then it ceases to be a local issue and begins to encroach on us all.

And that’s the secondary issue to keep in mind. It’s one that so many conservatives tend to ignore. Namely, the permanent giving away of social power to the state. I hear conservatives saying things like, “we shouldn’t let them build a mosque there next to the 9/11 site. It would be disrespectful to the memory of 9/11.” I don’t think they understand just how pregnant with consequences that statement is. For one, who is the “we” here? The “we” seems to indicate some amalgamation of themselves with government in deciding the fate of the mosque developer. But, as is always the case, what will really happen in reality isn’t we. It’s they. Because, of course, it’s the all-powerful state that will be the one to ultimately force the developer into obedience. And, that’s a very, very short sighted decision on the part of conservatives, because once the precedent is set that it’s the state that gets to control what kind of religious activities go on, on a piece of private property, you’ve opened the flood gates of religious discrimination.

We saw the same kind of short sightedness during the Bush years. So many conservatives (myself included) were quick to jump on board with horrible laws like the Patriot Act, without ever thinking through the consequences for future administrations. So what we’re left with now is an all powerful executive branch with a war mongering, liberal fascist in charge. We handed the pervues of society over to the state when “our guy” was in charge, not realizing that he was never “our guy.” Nobody has a “guy” who’s on their side in politics.

But, stepping back over to the mosque issue for a moment, we now see politicians, like Nancy Pelosi, coming out and stating opinions on it publicly. This is a bad sign. Pelosi is something of a political bellwether. When she starts talking, it’s a good indicator that everybody else in Washington is thinking the same thing. And, what are they thinking? That this is a win-win issue for them. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t be openly discussing it. You see, as we’ve talked about before, politicians only state opinions about issues in which both sides of that issue benefit them. Then they can safely take a position, because if they “lose”, at least their base saw them fighting the good fight, and if they “win” then their base is stoked that they won. This mosque issue is a classic example.

Think about it. If Pelosi takes a pro-mosque stance, the Democrat base will love her automatically. If she takes an anti-mosque stance, she still wins because she is reaffirming the legitimacy of the state to make such decisions. Thus, she increases her own power. It’s a win-win. The only people who lose are you and me. Because, a decade from now when someone wants to build a church near predominantly gay community, it might be denied a permit since doing so might cause “emotional tension” in the community. See how that works? Sometimes it’s absolutely necessary to defend the freedoms of others you might disagree with in order to preserve freedom for yourself. The state has no business at all in this issue.

It is not in every case easy or pleasant to ask men of the nation to leave their homes and women of the nation to give their men to the service of the nation. But the men and women of America have never held back even when it has meant personal sacrifice on their part if that is sacrifice for the common good.

The greatest attack that has ever been launched against freedom of the individual is nearer the Americas than ever before. To meet that attack we must prepare beforehand — for preparing later may and probably would be too late.

There is, moreover, another enemy at home. That enemy is the mean and petty spirit that mocks at ideals, sneers at sacrifice and pretends the American people can live by bread alone. If the spirit of God is not in us, and if we will not prepare to give all that we are to preserve Christian civilization in our own land, we shall go to destruction.

–F.D.R, Smokey Mtn. Nat’l Park Dedication Speech

The tactic of labeling every nation that doesn’t play ball with the administration as an enemy of freedom is a time-honored tradition. George Bush used the same tact:

On September 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

–George W. Bush, Joint Session of Congress

Oddly enough, Bush referenced Pearl Harbour in his speech. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s without doubt that FDR had foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbour because he specifically goaded the Japanese into attacking by following Arthur McCollum’s eight-action plan. This plan was meant to force Japan into a first strike against the U.S., since that would allow the U.S. to enter the war with popular support. Japan had allied itself to Germany and Italy, so that any attack by it would allow the U.S. to attack all of the countries included in the “axis powers” (or “axis of evil” in Bush-speak). Here’s some pertinent quotes to support this:

“The Roosevelt strategy of maneuvering the Japanese into striking the first blow at America was unknown to us,” [Admiral Husband] Kimmel wrote in his book, Admiral Kimmel’s Story, published in 1954. His first suspicions that someone in high office in Washington had consciously pursued a policy that led straight to Pearl Harbor “did not occur to him until after December 7, 1941.”

Richardson’s removal on February 1, 1941, strengthened the position of McCollum. Only five months earlier, in mid-September 1940, Germany and her Axis partner, Italy, had signed a mutual-assistance alliance with Japan. The Tripartite Pact committed the three partners to assist each other in the event of an attack on any one of them. McCollum saw the alliance as a golden opportunity. If Japan could be provoked into committing an overt act of war against the United States, then the Pact’s mutual assistance provisions would kick in. It was a back-door approach: Germany and Italy would come to Japan’s aid and thus directly involve the United States in the European war.

The number one problem for the United States, according to McCollum, was mobilizing public support for a declaration of war against the Axis powers. He saw little chance that Congress would send American troops to Europe. Over the objections of the majority of the populace, who still felt that European alarmists were creating much ado about nothing, he called for the Administration to create what he called “more ado”: “It is not believed,” wrote McCollum, “that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado.”

His solution to the political stalemate: use the eight proposed actions to provoke Japan into committing an overt act of war against the United States, thus triggering military responses from the two other signers of the Tripartite Pact. An allusion to McCollum’s eight actions was recorded by Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge Long. He wrote that on October 7, 1940, he learned of a series of steps involving the US Navy and that one included concentrating the fleet at Honolulu to be ready for any eventuality. “It looks to me as if little by little we will face a situation which will bring us into conflict with Japan,” Long wrote in his diary.

–Stinnett, Day of Deceit

The point I’m trying to make is that a simple ideology that says “they are bad guys and we’re good guys” or “they hate our freedom” is just way too clean and tidy to be real. I mean, seriously, who “hates freedom” except government? Isn’t it far more believable that the reason we are attacked by terrorists is not because they “hate our freedom”, but because they hate the things our government does to their life? After all, the west has been meddling in the middle-east for over a century. Just read The First World War and see how England invaded middle-eastern countries left and right for no apparent reason.

What’s more believable in all of these situations is that, in order for governments to maintain their legitimacy with their own people they must find convenient enemies. In the 40′s it was the Japanese. Today it’s the middle-east. What we are spoon-fed by the media is 75% propaganda to deliver a constant theme that we all come to believe in. Something like: “The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was unprovoked.” The reality behind the headlines is almost always way more complicated and orchestrated than that. You have to look behind the curtain.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m not anti-war, and I’m definitely not a pacifist. What I’m opposed to is standing armies and governments being the only ones allowed to legally use force. It’s dangerous and it leads to just the type of things we see over and over. Namely, politicians using military action for political purposes, not defense.

Watch what happens here. Ron Paul is asked a question about the war in Iraq and our foreign policy. He gives a well reasoned answer from history in response. The moderator then fires back with a challenge question about 9/11. What? What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? We were bombing Iraq all through the Clinton presidency. And to this day there has yet to be any evidence to tie Iraq to 9/11. They are completely un-related, except for the fact that Bush wanted to put a base there to keep our American interests in the middle east.

But, what really fires me up is Rudi Guiliani coming back with some tripe about how Ron Paul should rescind his statements because “I lived through 9/11.” So what? I watched it on T.V. If we take Guiliani’s statements as a syllogism it would look like this:

1. I was present at the 9/11 attacks.
2. I’ve never heard anyone claim blowback was what caused 9/11.
3. Therefore, we shouldn’t have a non-interventionist foreign policy.

What?  And, he gets raucous applause for that asinine argument?  I swear, sometimes it’s all just too much. And we wonder why we ended up with a fascist in the White House.