Why Ron Paul is Wrong

Before I begin with this article, let me be clear: the National Alliance Party respects many of the positions and actions which Congressman Ronald Paul has taken in his work for the people of Southern Texas and across the nation. That said, his generally pro-liberty positions do not exclude him from the capacity to make distasteful and rash decisions in the public eye, as he most recently did by declaring a stance in support of the Ground Zero Mosque.  

It's amusing to see the antics and general strategies of members of the People's House, and most especially when they are vying for the presidential nomination against the more heavyweight members of their political party. From Dennis Kucinich's proposed Department of Peace, to Dick Gephardt's two sided Iraq War position, and now to Dr. Paul, the chamber offers countless dark horse candidates who use their primed fame to generate popularity, and raise funds for their own reelection campaigns to the house.

It's important to note that these house members rarely retire, preferring to retain their house seats and the benefits which such employment entails, all while they rail on about the abominable evils of lengthy terms and overpaid congresspeople.  

But when Ron Paul came out in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque several days ago, he absolutely crossed the line between humble positions, and national madness. According to Paul, the mosque is justified due to property rights, which he believes the federal government is on a banzai mission to eliminate. Later on in his released statement, the representative went so far as to imply that his own party is forming a basis for more wars by riling up both sides of the debate about the cultural center. 

What Congressman Paul fails to understand is that this battle is not about personal rights, nor about government interventionism; it is instead focused on protecting an image of this country around the world. Did we, when surrounded by a hateful and violent enemy, stand firm as a nation besides the true birthplace of our struggle against terrorism, or simply far back in appeasement, simply due to a minor property rights dispute? 

No matter what the constitution may say, it is not an excuse for recklessness in a time of great chaos and uncertainty. In the past, our nation faced similar challenges, meeting them all by the calculated use of courage and nationalism, and without leaving behind any vital elements of survival versus the enemies of each age. 

Would any of us feel comfortable with a pro-Japanese marker at Pearl Harbor, or perhaps a pro-Islam statue in the central part of Madrid's subway? Any of these attempts would be deemed ridiculous, as they strip away the  value and hallowed nature of both of those locations. 

Yet Ron Paul, who did not lose any relatives or close ones in the terrible attacks of 9/11, has the audacity to come out a promote himself the visceral spokesperson for a rather unimportant issue in this instance. Even if the government were attempting to grab more rights from the people, they would hardly be able to do so effectively by using the same arguments, as an individual's property is not going to be hallowed ground by federal description. 

This is more than a policy issue; it is an historical issue of tremendous consequence. If we allow more concessions as a nation, we start a journey towards unbridled surrender to those who would do great harm to each American and the next generation of individuals in this country. Freedom will not remain free forever, and we must fight to retain its presence in the days and years to come. 

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy