An Open Letter to Ron Paul

Duncan Bayne's picture
Submitted by Duncan Bayne on Fri, 2007-11-23 08:33

Dear Dr. Paul,

If someone had asked me yesterday who I would vote for amongst the current crop of would-be Presidents, I would have unhesitatingly answered "Ron Paul." Despite the fact that I disagreed with some of your policies, I still saw you as by far and away the best candidate available.

That changed today, when I became aware of the following article you wrote, criticising the BATF & FBI assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco:

While I agreed with many of your criticisms of BATF and FBI tactics & strategy, it became apparent to me that your article was not primarily concerned with those criticisms: the main thrust of the article was to whitewash the monstrous evil committed by David Koresh and his followers. You wrote:

"The community of faith that once lived at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, believed the promise of free society."

This is the "community of faith" that sacrificed 12 year old girls to Koresh so they could serve as his 'wives' - some of whom bore his children. If that level of barbarism - a religious community complicit in the slavery and rape of young girls - represents anything approaching your idea of what is a "free society", then I don't want you having any say in how society operates.

I deeply regret that I have promoted your candidacy to some of my friends & colleagues, & sincerely hope your campaign meets the failure you so richly deserve.

Yours sincerely,
Duncan Bayne

( categories: )

The excuse that American

michael fasher's picture

The excuse that American presence in Saudi Arabia is utter bullshit.Theres been an American presence in Korea and Germany for decades and there arnt German or Korean terrorists flying plans into buildings


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Edit: I appear unable to get blank lines between paragraphs in my text as I could before the site upgrade yesterday. Even manually adding

hasn't allowed this now.

Para breaks look fine on my screen. But put any notes like this re bugs in Wm's "upgrade" thread—that's what it's there for.

Lotta tweaking and de-bugging to do yet. I don't know why these things are never simple. Neither do the geeks! Smiling

There's a difference between

Aaron's picture

There's a difference between 'explain' and 'blame'. If you go up to a raving lunatic muttering in the street and spit on him and then he bludgeons you and breaks your arms, his actions are not justified and you are not to 'blame' for his insane overly violent response - yet I would have no problem saying 'what the hell were you thinking?!' to you and thinking your actions at least fit in the explanation of what happened. As far as I know - and if you have a link showing otherwise let me know, the al-Sadr thing surprised me - Paul has never claimed the terrorists being pissed of at the US actually justified their actions.

On voting...

Seriously I only bother to vote when there is a local matter of significance. I'll spend the time to have a 1 in 15000 chance of keeping a local sales or property tax from rising, for example. I don't buy the popular mindset of thinking my 1 in 10s or over 100 million will have any influence in a national election though - even if an election ever came that close, election 2000 showed that it is less than the margin of error and would be determined by courts instead of voters anyway.

As I insinuated in my last post, I'll be qualified to serve as president, so if in the ballot box in Nov 2008 will vote for myself. Hopefully I can pick up Suma's vote too. At that point, I'm well on my way to polling as well as Ron Paul!

Edit: I appear unable to get blank lines between paragraphs in my text as I could before the site upgrade yesterday. Even manually adding <p> hasn't allowed this now.

Aaron, Given your apparent

Duncan Bayne's picture


Given your apparent conclusion that all the candidates are rotten to varying degrees - and I'm inclined to agree - what do you hope to achieve by voting for any of them? Not being sarcastic, I'm really curious.


Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Blaming the victim

Duncan Bayne's picture

In fact, bin Laden and his cohorts explicitly cite the American military presence in the Middle East (and in particular Saudi Arabia ) as a cause of and justification for their atrocities against the USA. The fact that at least some terrorism is a response to the US presence is beyond dispute.

The point that Paul & Co. miss in blaming the US for that terrorism is that the decision to commit illegal acts of murder and vandalism was a conscious one on the part of the terrorists, in response to actions that the US were absolutely entitled to take (i.e. setting up military bases in a friendly country).

Blaming the US for terrorist actions as a result of their presence in the Middle East is the same type of error as blaming scantily-dressed women for rape. The victim is the US; that they exercised their rights in a way that the criminals claim to be provocative is neither here nor there.

That said, I don't think that many of those bases are a good idea in terms of the cost in lives, taxpayers money, and unholy alliances (with Darth Saud, for example). But to blame the US for terrorist actions carried out in response to the existence of those bases is just plain irrational, and suggests that Paul has a poor grasp of ethics & responsibility.



Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Aaron for POTUS!

Suma's picture

I'm native born, and will turn 35 before January 2009. I know how I'm voting now.

Does this mean what I think it means? Very nice! I actually liked your black-ops based proposal to get rid of tyrants from a while back. The rest of the policies should ofcourse be no-brainers.

Ron Paul seems to be popular in my neck of the woods. I never liked his stance on the war, but thought he was OK otherwise. The various info/articles posted here have been a real eye opener.

I'm solidly against US

Aaron's picture

I'm solidly against US dollars and lives being sacrificed to Iraq, and personally don't give a damn whether our leaving means the average Iraqi lives in chaos and civil war - or a life of happy bunnies, a chicken in every pot, and blowjobs twice a day. However, after listening to that video a couple more times I was baffled and very disappointed that Paul actually considered al Sadr taking over the south as not just not our concern or a failure of the surge, but a good thing. The post concerning separation of church and state, the fact that Paul has sponsored bills defining life as beginning at conception, and supported bills banning burning of the flag do more to disillusion me concerning him.

Watching the CNN debates was as addictive as getting on YouTube, and thoroughly disheartening. Other Republicans couldn't name one social programs they would cut, generally talked out of both sides of their mouth, Rudy advocated NY style gun control (hastily backpedalling some only when booed by the audience), etc. Paul is a religious libertarian with a couple big blinds spots and a bad knack for speaking and I'm not prone to advocate him like I once would have - but there's sure no one else in the Repubs better either (or Galt forbid, the Democrats). So...

I'm native born, and will turn 35 before January 2009. I know how I'm voting now. Smiling

Splendid writing by Bidinotto!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

'Just as I reject the liberal "excuse-making industry" that denies volition and rationalizes the acts of criminals, I am totally fed up with the disgraceful foreign-policy perspectives of those libertarians who portray the United States as the causal agent of every evil on earth -- thus rationalizing the atrocities of foreign terrorists and despots.

'Ron Paul has become the most visible exponent of that malignant view of America. In my mind, his "blowback" excuse for 9/11 -- and "excuse" is exactly what his "explanation" amounts to -- is sufficient to completely disqualify him for any American public office, let alone for the role of commander in chief of the U.S. military.'

Galt, that is refreshing!!


Paul = Pygmy

Michael Moeller's picture

Mr. Bidinotto's complete dismantling of Paul's "non-interventionism" is a must-read. I don't have much to add in regards to that specific topic. The idea that Iran represents no threat--and even if it did acquire nuclear weapons they would have a "right" to them--is ghastly to comtemplate in this day and age.

However, his stance on immigration, abortion, and the separation of church and state, while contradictory, does not surprise me. It is perfectly in-line with his epistemological method. As Mr. Bidinotto observed, he takes complex historical foreign policy decisions and reduces them into buzzwords to prove post hoc that the fault lies with America's "meddling" in other countries.

What we see at work is the concrete-bound mentality. Mr. Paul is fond of saying he is "a constitionalist", "for the constitution", etc etc. Liberals and conservatives likewise claim the same thing, and have organized think-tanks and organizations specifically for that purpose.

But the essence lies in how one interprets the Constitution. In Mr. Paul's case, he falls squarely on the concrete-bound side of the divide. Why is "non-intervenionism" or disbanding the IRS good? Because George Washington or the Constitution says so. Why is abortion ok? Because the Constitution does not say so. There is no wider ethical and epistemological standards by which to judge the validity of the principles, and how they apply to new factual circumstances.

That's what makes his stance on the separation of church and state no surprise to me. Just like Moses handed down principles on stone tablets to be accepted, so too did the Framer's lay down principles in farewell addresses and the Constitution to be accepted. Paul and his followers treat it like revealed word, and then proceed to cut out half of their brain and offer it up as a sacrifice to said principles.

Hence, this concrete-boundedness explains certain contradictory positions (immigration, abortion, etc.) that were not explicitly laid down. It also explains why they completely ignore any new factual circumstances that may make the application of those principles dangerous or irrelevant. For instance, as Mr. Bidinotto stated, the advance of telecommunications, global travel, ICBM's, etc. do not dissuade Mr. Paul and his followers from rethinking the idea that defense should only extend to America's borders. "So what?" they declare, "It violates the principle of non-interventionism".

Besides this treatment of principles as out-of-context absolutes, you'll also find the collapse into subjectivism--a subtle result of the concrete-bound mentality. Since immigration and abortion were not explicitly dealt with in the Constitution, what is wrong with them, after all? There is no wider philosophical justification for these protections, even though they are implicitly embodied in the Constitution via a wider concept of individual rights.

The sooner this man gets his 0.1% of the vote and leaves the race, the happier I will be.

The maggot ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

.... was citing al-Sadr's alleged greater control of the South as an example of Iraqis taking their country back, which he applauded. "Maggot" is altogether too flattering for this ... well, I don't have the words for the creature.

That clip was the one about

Aaron's picture

That clip was the one about the surge not being a great success because al-Sadr has greater control of the south of Iraq, right? I really haven't followed the status of al-Sadr, but is this claim what you're even considering worthy of 'maggot', 'obscene', and 'treachery'?

May I ask

Big Ben's picture

what obscene ideas you are referring to? Being that on the face of it he appears to be the one contendor who seems to believe as I and presumably you do the that the creation of the united states was the greatest achievment in human history.

Ron the Saddamite ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is at it again, here debating with Fred Thompson. See Victory in Iraq clip. Paul is a maggot, all the more so because he's purveying decent ideas along with his totally obscene ones and demeaning the former with his abject treachery.

If in your mind theres nothing wrong

Big Ben's picture

with having 140 wives why did you even mention it why didn't you simply say he that he sexualy abused many children as young as 12 the fact he had 140 wives has nothing to do woth it.

Yes no politicain is perfect from an objectionist prospective but you can't say voting for the the one thats the closest over all can be a bad thing. Yes hes wrong about abortion but (he has said he wants the states to make there own rules) and imegration but hes right about so many other things such as

*income tax

*civil liberties

*the war on drugs

*gun control

*foriegn policy


*health care

*the constiution


My point is you have to take the wins you can get when it comes to voting and worry about the one you can't latter other wise were always ganna lose.

Also whats wrong with having

Duncan Bayne's picture

Also whats wrong with having 140 wives providing all the parties have mutually agreed.

Nothing whatsoever - except if some of them are twelve years old, as was the case with several of David Koresh's wives. This isn't stupidity on Paul's part, this is willful evasion of the truth regarding the Branch Davidians.

Come on the guys he's talking about getting rid of federal income tax altogether and you wouldn't vote for him. His voting record speaks for it self he's one of a rare brread an honest politican.

The David Koresh whitewash, and further reading on the abortion issue (indicating that Ron Paul doesn't just want Federal Government out of the issue, but that he wants it made illegal and has campaigned to do just that) just adds him to my long, long list of politicians who aren't worth voting for. Honesty in a politician only makes it easier to work out whether or not to vote for someone, it isn't a selling point in & of itself.

The absence of decent candidates is the symptom of a much deeper problem, which cannot be fixed by voting in any particular way (and which in fact may be exacerbated by voting for anyone - i.e., by participation in the existing process).

[Edited to clarify the sentence where I appeared to claim that Koresh was 12 years old and a member of his own harem.]


Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!


Elijah Lineberry's picture

rather helps if some of the Wives are not younger than Callum.

"I create nothing. I own"

You can't be a libetarian and support any republican but paul

Big Ben's picture

Come on the guys he's talking about getting rid of federal income tax altogether and you wouldn't vote for him. His voting record speaks for it self he's one of a rare brread an honest politican.

Yes he has said some odd things and some times not made his point clear enough. But these of the cuff comments are generly related to specific incidents when he speaks on government policy he speaks well and dosn't flip flop.

Also whats wrong with having 140 wives providing all the parties have mutually agreed.

Whats the point in not voting for some one who's polices you agree with when he's honest. You go into politics for 40 years and we'll see if you don't say any thing stupid.

Our posts crossed, just saw

Aaron's picture

Our posts crossed, just saw your new one now.

"Furthermore, the BATF had determined that Koresh had impregnated girls as young as 12 by 1993."

I'm not sure why the BATF would be the ones to determine that, but interesting if that could be confirmed. I was very tuned into this in 1993 as it happened, and the child services investigation without pressing charges was the only thing I encountered other than general media sensationalism about it being a cult so he's probably a child molester. Where did you encounter that?

I agree with you Duncan that

Aaron's picture

I agree with you Duncan that the 'community of faith' and 'promise of a free society' line is ridiculously romanticized tripe. However, I don't agree with you characterizing Paul's article generally as a whitewash or where you are focusing on 'monstrous evil'.

Koresh and company were undoubtedly kooks. Maybe David Koresh was a child molester or abuser, maybe not - a former Davidian made accusations, but Koresh was also investigated by Texas child services without charges being pressed. It's enough to be very suspicious but not conclusive. If he was in fact a molester or abuser then he was evil and should have been arrested and put away for it - and this is the one clarification that I think Paul should have said explicitly.

However, even if Koresh was guilty, it does not constitute a capital crime, and certainly no system of justice would see fit to punish everyone around him for his crimes. The US government attacked and ultimately killed 86 people for bogus charges unrelated to child abuse. That's the monstrous evil, one Koresh or other Davidians never held a candle to.

Nicholas, Paul knew full

Duncan Bayne's picture


Paul knew full well that Koresh was abusing children. The article I cited was written in 1994, and Koresh had been preaching since 1986 that he was entitled - by no lesser authority than God himself - to a harem of 140 wives. Furthermore, the BATF had determined that Koresh had impregnated girls as young as 12 by 1993. The evidence was all in the public domain by the time of the raid on the Waco compound.

Now, I'm not a fan of the BATF or the FBI. There have been countless documented cases of both organisations overstepping legal boundaries, and in fact the BATF shouldn't even exist according to the US Constitution. There is no doubt that the raid on the Branch Davidian compound was in part politically motivated, was badly handled throughout, and culminated in an avoidable loss of life. These points are all made - and made well - by Ron Paul.

However, it is inconceivable that Ron Paul could have researched the Waco siege well enough to attack the BATF and the FBI on the matter, but somehow miss the fact that Koresh was a serial child molester. The moment you start researching what happened Waco, you discover that.

And if he did discover that, but found some information that refuted the evidence of child abuse, he's been awfully quiet about it. Instead of presenting that evidence to clear Koresh's name, he just quietly ignores the issue, preferring to say that the community at Waco "believed the promise of free society."


Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Not necessarily

Nicholas Cloud's picture

I seriously doubt Ron Paul would defend Koresh's perverse actions. Perhaps he is ignorant about the details surrounding the Branch Davidian cult (I didn't know that Koresh slept with 16, 14, and 12-year old girls until I did some research after reading your post), but the most I think you can accuse him of would be sloppy research. I think the point of his article was to criticize the ATF for their actions based on the ATF's own stated purpose for attacking the Waco compound. Later in the article, he writes: "The stated purpose of the raid was to save children from abuse. Yet Janet Reno lied about that too. The information she used was already discredited, and she later admitted it." Whether this is true or not, I think it's safe to say that Ron Paul did not believe at the time (maybe still) that Koresh was abusing children, and thus was not advocating that kind of behavior in a free society.

"Competition is a by-product of productive work, *not* its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, *not* by the desire to beat others." -- Ayn Rand


Elijah Lineberry's picture

good letter, Duncan.

There are a myriad of Ron Paul groups on and elsewhere, and the people involved are quite ignorant of his Waco whitewash and the 12 year old Wife business.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.