Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

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-conservative’s 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.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul: The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians Ron Paul is interviewed by Alan Colmes on private property…
2. Ron Paul on Terrorism Congressman Ron Paul gives his thoughts on Yemen, the attempted…
3. Ron Paul’s Speech at CPAC: Stop the Wars, End the Fed, Regain our Liberties! Stop preventive and undeclared wars, return to sound monetary policies,…

By RonPaul.com

From HotelNewsNow.com: STR: Chain-scale segments report RevPAR boost

Overall, the industry’s occupancy increased 6.9% to 68.3%, ADR rose 1.9% to US$98.88, and RevPAR increased 9.0% to US$67.52.

The following graph shows the four week moving average for the occupancy rate by week for 2008, 2009 and 2010 (and a median for 2000 through 2007).

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

Notes: the scale doesn’t start at zero to better show the change. The graph shows the 4-week average, not the weekly occupancy rate.

On a 4-week basis, occupancy is up 6.8% compared to last year (the worst year since the Great Depression) and 3.7% below the median for 2000 through 2007.

The occupancy rate is almost back to the levels of 2008 – and 2008 was a tough year for the hotel industry!

NOTE: The supply of rooms in the survey is up just over 2% from last year. The increase in the occupancy rate is from an increase in demand – although this is still fairly weak.

Data Source: Smith Travel Research, Courtesy of HotelNewsNow.com

By CalculatedRisk

Here is the schedule for this week.

Is the economy threatening retirement plans, or is less spending from those saving for retirement threatening the economy? Probably both …

This article from the WSJ takes the 2nd view: Another Threat to Economy: Boomers Cutting Back

Low yields present retirees with a difficult choice: Accept the lower income offered by safer bonds, or take the risk of staying in the stock market. Either way, their predicament could put a long-term damper on the consumer spending that typically drives U.S. growth.
…
As of 2008, the latest data available, people aged 65 to 74 were spending 12.3% less than they did ten years earlier, in inflation-adjusted terms.

And the job market is tough for older workers too …

By CalculatedRisk

Date: 08/10/2010

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul: Congress Could End Obama’s Wars The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars by Ron Paul Our…
2. Ron Paul on AntiWar Radio: No US Empire Without The Fed Ron Paul discusses the pitfalls his “Audit the Fed” amendment…
3. Rand Paul, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell on Freedom Watch This afternoon, Rand Paul joined Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Otto…

By RonPaul.com

Lenders say they are trying to recover some of that money but their success has been limited, in part because so many borrowers threaten bankruptcy and the collateral in the homes backing the loans has often disappeared.

The result is one of the paradoxes of the recession: the more money you borrowed, the less likely you will have to pay up.

By CalculatedRisk

Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows the duration of unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor force. The graph shows the number of unemployed in four categories: less than 5 week, 6 to 14 weeks, 15 to 26 weeks, and 27 weeks or more.

Note: The BLS reports 15+ weeks, so the 15 to 26 weeks number was calculated.

In July 2010, the number of unemployed for 27 weeks or more declined slightly to 6.572 million (seasonally adjusted) from 6.751 million in June. It is possible that the number of long term unemployed has peaked, but it is still very difficult for these people to find a job – and this is a very serious employment issue.

The less than 5 weeks category increased in July and is now at the highest level since January – and that is concerning.

Note: Even though these numbers are all seasonally adjusted, they can’t be added together to calculate the unemployment rate.

Employment posts yesterday (with many graphs):