Libertarians in Cahoots with Obama Admin and Call Mosque Opponents "Bigots" and "Racists"

and "Warmongers" and "Demagogues".

I have to say I'm disappointed.

This mosque/Muslim community center was pretty much a non-issue for people outside New York, until President Obama for some reason decided to step in and throw his support behind the project, citing, of all things, the Constitution.

It's most cynical of this president to base his support on the Constitution, when just about everything he has done since he became the president has been to further restrict citizens' rights under the Constitution and further expand the power of the government which was already huge under Bush and Clinton.

Now, people whose views and opinions I have respected, people like Lew Rockwell, Eric Magolis at Lewrockwell.com, Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com are almost gleefully calling the mosque opponents "bigots" and "racists" and "warmongers". Raimondo goes to ask the same question that George W. Bush asked ("Are you with us or against us?") by starting the article "Liberty against the lynch mob: which side are you on?" Ron Paul basically states we have to accept the mosque even if that's insensitive and objectionable to some people because of the grave injuries the US has caused over the years in Muslim countries, and calls the opponents "demagogue". (Ron Paul, as the result, is suddenly popular with liberal bloggers.) The American Conservative magazine had the article in the similar vein as Ron Paul.

I rarely have a serious objection to the opinions expressed at Lewrockwell.com or Antiwar.com, but this is one of the rare cases.

Extremely rare for them, they are in agreement with President Obama and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and tell us that if we oppose the Muslim center and mosque within two blocks from the Ground Zero, we are bigots and racists and warmongers and demagogues.

Haven't we heard these words somewhere else?

Yes we have, and many times in the past year and a half. Anyone who dare oppose the Obama government policies have been called "racists" by the administration and its Democratic leadership and supporters. If you oppose Obamacare, you are racist; if you oppose climate change bill, you are racist; if you oppose stimulus spending, you are racist; if you oppose financial regulation bill, you are racist and dirty capitalist on top of it. And if you mention the president's middle name (Hussein), you are "bigot". That's how they've been calling the majority of Americans who oppose anything that the current government does: "racist" and "bigots".

According to a Rasmussen Poll, these bigots and racists and warmongers and demagogues make up 77% of mainstream Americans, in contrast to 68% of the political class in favor of the mosque.

Just like 56% of American voters want Obamacare repealed, 75% of them want the Federal Reserve audited. Majority support Arizona's immigration law, 72% oppose increase in government spending. And they oppose this particular mosque.

I am not ready nor prepared to call the majority who oppose this mosque "racists", "bigots", "warmongers", "demagogues" and to shame them into accepting what clearly doesn't sit well with them, if not downright repulsive.

What's different this time around is that people who throw these words at Americans who oppose include libertarians. Suddenly, in their eyes, President Obama seems to have morphed into a paragon of Constitutional virtue.

Muslim Americans have constitutional right to worship wherever they want. Sure. That's not even an issue for most Americans who oppose this mosque. They are opposing this particular one within two blocks of the Ground Zero as "insensitive".

Americans who smoke have constitutional right to smoke wherever and whenever they want. But many businesses ask them not to, or ban them from exercising their right when there are others whose well-being would be injured by having the smokers nearby. Sensitive and sensible, many smokers do not smoke in the presence of small children, without being asked not to.

There's a city in Europe which still is my favorite city. But a certain section of the city I stopped going after the character and ambiance of the place had changed so much after the newly arrived Muslim immigrants exercised their right to live wherever they wanted and did so in such a great number that you wouldn't recognize it was the same place. You'd hardly see a white person, other than tourists accidentally wandering into the area, and you would hardly see a woman either. I remember a very uncomfortable stare I'd get passing through the section. There was a porn movie shop open during the day, right next to the game arcade; streets were strewn with trash.

People who want to build so-called "MacMansions" have every right to build whatever atrocity they want, as long as they follow the local regulations and laws. They almost always do build their "dream homes", thus totally destroying the neighborhood character that the long-term residents have appreciated for a long time. More and more neighborhood communities have a review board of some sort to somehow curb this architectural pollution that harms the well-being of other residents, but usually to little avail.

This particular mosque is no exception. Sure, they may have all the rights under the law to do whatever they want, but the question is, is it sensible thing for them to do, particularly when the supposed purpose of this mosque/center is "a platform for multi-faith dialogue"? Dialogue? It's not happening.

It is sad to see even the libertarians joining the autocratic Dems and GOP in telling the entire country what to think and feel over what should have been a non-issue other than for New Yorkers and 9/11 victim families.

Tweet