An open letter to Dr. Ron Paul

The following is an open letter that I have just sent to Dr. Ron Paul. I have added hyperlinks throughout for reference.

Dear Dr. Ron Paul,

My name is Klint Finley, and I’m a blogger and freelance writer. I’ve been following your campaign for some time now, and commend you on many issues such as: your unequivocal call to end the war on drugs; your condemnation of the death penalty; your call to repeal acts such as the National Security Act of 1947 and the Patriot act; and your condemnation of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. I believe you are the only presidential candidate from either major party to specifically address the National Security Act of 1947 and the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

However, I can’t help but be disturbed by some of your statements and positions and have written various blog entries saying so. I’m writing because I believe I should offer you the chance to clarify some of these remarks. I apologize in advance that some of these questions are hostile, and in some cases read more like attacks than questions. Many of these issues are emotional to me, and frankly some of these positions look bad. I understand that you are probably too busy to respond to me yourself, and will be just as happy to receive a reply from someone on your staff.

1. You advocate the use of letters of marque and reprisal to deal with foreign terrorist threats, and in an interview with Hugh Hewitt say that “certain companies” could be hired to attack our enemies for us. Is Blackwater one of those companies? How would these companies be held accountable for their actions? If they are “deputized” as you said to Hewitt, does that many their actions on behalf of the United States reflect the United State?

2. In 1996 the Dallas Morning News and the Austin Chronicle exposed several racist remarks printed in your newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report. At the time, you defended the remarks saying they were based on “current events and statistical reports of the time.”

In 2001, in an interview in Texas Monthly, you backtracked saying “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around… They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”

Why did you feel that it was more important to defend racism for political gain than to speak your mind?

3. Why did it take you 5 years to denounce the statements made by a rogue staffer in your newsletter? Couldn’t you have revealed this right after the election?

4. Why were the remarks not simply renounced after they were published in 1992? Did you not read your own newsletter? If not, why did you think it was a good idea to have a newsletter published in your name that you did not even read?

5. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “The War on Religion” you state “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”

Are you aware that “God” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution?

6. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “The Immigration Question” you describe the United States as being Balkanized and state that there are millions of immigrants in the United States who do not speak English and do not “participate fully in American life.”

Yet a PBS report on immigration states that “About half of recent immigrants report speaking English ‘very well’ or ‘well,’ despite the fact that some may not speak English in the home.”

What sources do you have that say that English is not being adopted by immigrants, and what are your criteria for “participating fully in American life”?

7. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “Rethinking Birthright Citizenship” you stated that you want to amend the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Are there any other parts of the Constitution that you would like to repeal?

8. In an article appearing on ronpaul2008.com titled “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban” you state that “Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age” but that though you intended to vote for H.R. 760 (as you subsequently did) you believed it to be “constitutionally flawed.” This appears to be in direct conflict with the statement on ronpaul2008.com that “Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” How do you reconcile your vote for the partial birth abortion ban with your constitutionalist approach, and is there any other legislation that you would vote for despite its not being constitutional?

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your, or your staff’s, response.

Sincerely,
Klint Finley
http://www.klintron.com

5 Comments

  1. Klint,

    I’m sure Dr. Paul will respond personally to your open letter, especially since all the answers to your questions could be found with 15 minutes of Google time.

    Proof positive that Ron Paul is a racist! MUST SEE!!

  2. PS Klint — you know that Letters of Marque and Reprisal are in the Constitution, right? You make it sound like it’s something Paul just made up.

    It’s in the heroic Article I, Section 8. Check out that Konstitution, Klint!

  3. FZappa,

    1) If you believe you have direct quotes from Dr. Paul that address my questions, please feel free to post them.

    2) You Tube user getonid makes an excellent point about Dr. Paul’s position on the war on drugs and its negative effect on the black community. He could also have pointed out that Dr. Paul wants to abolish the death penalty, which disproportionately effects racial minorities. I commended Dr. Paul on both of these things in the introduction of my letter. In certain areas, he stands out above most if not all other candidates. It is worth noting, however, that both Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich oppose the war on drugs. Gravel, Kucinich, Obama, and Dodd all oppose the death penalty.

    But that doesn’t address the questions I ask. Via the You Tube link you posted, I found another You Tube video, asking similar questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOxi4oPF7g

    I ask the question because Paul seems to refuse to talk about it now. In a New York Times Magazine article Christopher Caldwell writes “He remains touchy about it. ‘Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, “Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,”‘ he told me in June.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

    3) I didn’t mean to imply that they were something Dr. Paul just made up. As he says, there’s historical precedent for them. My question is about Blackwater, as I can’t find any quotes about Blackwater from Dr. Paul, and about the accountability of these private sources.

    Dr. Paul suggests that a private contractor could have gotten to Bin Laden before he fled to Pakistan. Assuming that’s true, these contractors would still have to enter a sovereign nation and possibly commit crimes. Knowing what we know now, it’s easy to believe that Bin Laden could have been apprehended or killed before he went to Pakistan, but how were we to know at the time he wouldn’t flee to Pakistan sooner? What would the political implication of our “deputies” crossing into Pakistani territory?

  4. Klint,

    Most of what you have written can, as one blogger put it, be researched and satisfactorily answered via google. I’ll address those if you wish. I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. As with most of us, we care only for the truth.

    Notwithstanding, you do raise a very astitute and a poignant observation in No. 8. I think this is the most worthy part of your blog here.

    I don’t know how Paul reconciles it anymore than we can reconcile the Louisiana Purchase or that Congress and Lincoln arrogated the power to outlaw slavery. I suppose an issue rises so high morally, that one is compelled? Compelled to use a mulligan? That can’t be the answer. I’ll post further if I find out how to reconcile his position.

  5. Thanks Joseph. If you’d like to take a stab at answering, I’d be happy to read your response. I have yet to hear back from Dr. Paul’s campaign.

Comments are closed.

© 2020 Technoccult

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: