All right. You make that distinction. But the Ron Pauls of this world don't.

Pseudo-ops is very different than being able to identify a threat. I think you're mixing two different things.
Rounding up Japanese during ww2 is very different than not allowing unvetted refugees from the Middle East in,especially after what happen in France.

Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas-14th) took exactly that position and attitude. Enemy identification was his Achilles heel, and always was. And several who call themselves libertarians do routinely accuse the United States government of laying on pseudo-ops "to whip up war fever." Haven't you heard? Haven't you seen? Does the phrase "Nine-eleven Truther" mean anything to you?

I disagree with that whole heartedly.
That sounds more like a liberal, not a libertarian.

I can't speak for most Gulchers, but Rand Paul's positions on this and most other topics are highly in line with my own. There are few things I find myself at odds with Rand Paul about. He's far and away my #2 pick for the GOP nomination trailing only Ted Cruz.

Not so different as you might imagine. They declared themselves sovereign. Midas Mulligan claimed allodial title over his land. He, Francisco, and Ragnar were the primary stakeholders in a functioning Committee of Safety. (John Galt was Midas' proxy.)

A libertarian would reject profiling on the ground that no profile can be perfect. (He might want to talk to the IDF or to the security staff of El Al about that one.) And the problem I see too many libertarians having, is simply not being able to conceive of anyone waking up in the morning, on lands beyond the ocean, saying, "I want to kill somebody in that fat, rich land." They then accuse the government of said "fat, rich land" of laying on a pseudo-operation.

Another good point.
I understand the people who believe in Islam refer to it simply as "Islam" not the religion of Islam, so I would contend that the believers do not even consider it a Religion. It is entirely possible that the word Religion was added by non-believers as a way to describe it. But I am no expert in this and maybe someone this site could shed some light on my theory. I may have to post the subject. :)

We can't make a tenable assertion as to whether or not the FF would consider Islam a religion "worth protecting". As such assertions like that represent what we personally feel or believe rather than fact.

As to what the battles with the Barbary States, those were after the creation of the U.S. and as such can't be used to support a claim that it influenced what they considered protected by the constitution. It should also be noted that the actions which occurred along the Barbary Coast were the result of privacy not of religious origin. Also that the first nation to formally and publicly recognize the United States of America as a soverign nation was the muslim nation of Morocco - on the states along the Barbary Coast.

Indeed it can, and has been, argued that your assertion is the inverse of the known history. For example, John Locke said "neither Pagan nor Mahamedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion." where "Mahamedan" is what we now refer to as Muslim. Jefferson himself referenced this in his work. Notable also is that Jefferson owned a copy of the Qu'ran for a decade prior to writing the founding documents, so to imply he wasn't well versed on it borders on absurdity in my opinion as he was known to be a very intellectually minded man. Jefferson was not a "fan" of the religion, but that didn't stop him from advocating strongly and publicly that they should not be treated as less than Christians or Jews based on their religion.

Washington, also, specifically noted Muslism were considered on par with Christians when he wrote to a friend that a person's religious beliefs are not of consideration in hiring: “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Atheists.” Note as well he also specifically mentions atheists as well.

Where people often go wrong with a surface review of the available material is in mis-applying the sentiments expressed. Often many of the founders, to include signatories in the ratification of the constitution, express their doubt that a Muslim, Jew, or Atheist would be elected. This is not the same as preventing (or "not protecting") them.

Where people of today go wrong is in conflating tolerance for a given religious belief or non-belief as the same as accepting or equating it. Religion isn't the only area today's society has this problem in, but it is a pretty big one. When you review the period's literature they speak of actions making the difference, not beliefs. They had been religiously persecuted and thus knew what it was like to be put down, to be excluded, and to be attacked based not on their actions but instead on their beliefs.

A belief, like a gun, does nothing it can not act in it's own. The founding fathers through their actions and words demonstrate an understanding of this fact, and separate a person's beliefs from their actions. To claim religious liberty was intended to only apply to Christians and Jews is to ignore the facts of the era and apply personal desire by conversion of statements from one category to another. Conversely those who argue that the FF actually sought out to include and incorporate Islam or Muslisms are making the very same mistakes and fallacies.

They would have considered Islam to be barbarism and hence not related to freedom...yes.

The word "barbarians" refers to those who dwelt on the Barbary Coast.

Exactly.

Here Here! +1

I think you have a good point!

IMHO, Islam is not a religion, it's a governing body. The Koran being it's Constitution or it's complete set of rules and regulations for the life of the people that participate willingly or unwillingly. Therefore I believe our founders could not have accepted it because it does not allow for the freedom of or from religion.

Well, that would certainly be different. Then it would have to be by invitation only. :-) I'm trying to wrap my head around a totally privately owned country.

A great majority of land in the US is owned by the gov't.

Agreed. Very well stated. Thanks!

Not with this Gulcher. I support his proposition 100%.

I heartily agree.

Of course, the next thing they would say is "It is a good day to die!" ;)

What if virtually all property in the country is private (as would be the case in a country operating on Objectivist principles)?

Not completely different, if all (or nearly all) property in the country is private, as would be the case in an Objectivist country.

Muchas gracious, senor. Ahora dame mas cosas gratis. Oye, por que usted no entiende las palabras que salen de mi boca? No, no necesito de Ingles apestosol.

The following translation is brought to you by Google Translate. Any errors are on them. Not me. Not ever. No, I don't need no stinking blame!

Much thanks, mister. Now give me more free stuff. Hey, why do you not understand the words that come out of my mouth? No, I don't need no stinking English!

Comparison between private property and a country just does not jive.