Open Letter to the Supporters of Barack Obama On Behalf of Ron Paul

Email Print



Open Letters


of your political persuasion, you have to admit that the rhetoric
and style of a Barack Obama speech is truly inspiring. There is
indeed a hunger in America for a “message of hope." I’m trying to
find a more current equivalent to the “We Are the World” concert
for the benefit of younger readers, but that is the image I get
from watching an Obama ad or rally. “Yes We Can” is a theme that
just about everyone — especially the New York Giants’ secondary
— can learn to appreciate. Since Obama really doesn’t have much
of a record to help or hurt him, many idealists see him as an alternative
to the establishment (Bush-Clinton-McCain co-conspirators of the
War Party).

There is no
doubt in my mind that an Obama administration would be significantly
different than another Clinton regime (er… administration), but
I won’t get into those differences because — I hate to inform you
Obama supports out there — it will not happen. No conspiracy
theories here, but I do believe there is an establishment class
(an unholy trinity of government bureaucrats, corporations, and
media elites) in this country who have picked their candidate and
her first name is Hillary.

All three of
the branches of the establishment party (made up of Democrats and
Republicans) benefit from the bigger welfare-warfare state Hillary
Clinton would bring to the table — universal Pre-K, “free” health
care (i.e. poor service and more profits for a few “government-approved”
corporations at the expense of taxpayers), more government-approved
education, and yes Clinton supporters, essentially the same foreign
policy and threat to civil liberties as George W. Bush. (See her
votes on the Iraq war, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, threats
to Iran, domestic surveillance of citizens, etc.). John McCain is
essentially the establishment’s “designated loser” along the way.

On matters
of substance, in spite of the rhetoric and amazing speeches, Barack
Obama is only slightly to the left of Hillary. While he did not
vote to authorize the Iraq war (he wasn’t in the Senate at the time),
he has repeatedly said no options are off the table for pre-emptive
war with Iran or Pakistan. He also did not oppose the reauthorization
of the Patriot Act which allows federal agents to write their own
search warrants, search your home and make it look like a burglary,
not tell you about it for 18 months, and forbids you, under threat
of imprisonment, from telling anyone this has taken place. Hey,
at least we’re “safe” from the “terrists” (sic), right?

Now the President
is trying to grant legal immunity to telecom companies like AT&T
who cooperated with the National Security Agency to listen to our
cell phone conversations and read our email and Clintobama are doing
nothing. Meanwhile, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Prevention Act” — recently approved by Congress — is before the
Senate (H.R.1955/S.1959). This would create a new government thought
police agency to regulate the internet under the guise of preventing
potentially violent “ideologies." And with the help of the
corporate, entertainment-driven media, these people are distracting
us from the real threats of government tyranny by promising “free”
this and that.

In the midst
of this insanity, Ron Paul is the only candidate who does not speak
in the platitudes of political-speak. I can’t even image a real
“debate” where he and the phonies actually discuss intellectual
and philosophical issues about the current economic crisis caused
by our overreaching empire of destruction. Real ideas never fit
into 30-second sound bites for 90-second “debate” responses. Watch
this in-depth interview
and ask yourself whether or not the feeble minds of a McCain or
a Clinton wouldn’t literally spontaneously combust just from being
in the same room.

Young people
who do not remember much more than the Bush II regime should not
have the false hope that a Democrat in the White House will be significantly
different. The history of the past century has been one of perpetual
war and loss of liberty.

Unless there
is real “change” in this country, I am afraid the last vestiges
of freedom we have left will be gone. The thinking that we are electing
our “Commander-in-Chief” demonstrates the degree to which we have
been conditioned into slavery to the state. The president is only
commander-in-chief of the military, not each citizen, although candidates
like Obama and McCain are calling for “national service” requirements.
I suppose it would be ironic if the first African American president
(Bill Clinton excluded) reinstituted slavery. (Any kind of government
requirement to “serve," whether in the military or the Peace
Corps is…uh…let’s see how I should put this … slavery.)

While I am
on the subject of slavery, I also feel compelled to address the
advocates of “peace” on the left. At least during Republican wars
or aggression, those on the left seem to be the biggest “anti-war”
activists. Yet they refuse to support a real anti-war (more appropriately
“anti-aggression”) candidate like Ron Paul because he doesn’t conform
to their domestic agenda of more taxes and government handouts.
It is sad that I have to point this out, but the philosophical opposition
to preemptively bombing a country that did not threaten us is the
same moral principle that says we should not be pointing guns at
people in our own country to tell them how to live or what “charity”
to support.

For those of
you who may not understand libertarianism, it is really quite simple:

  1. No individual
    has the moral authority to initiate aggression against another
  2. No individual
    or group has the moral authority to initiate aggression against
    another individual or group by calling themselves “the government.”

With regard
to the first point, just about everyone is a libertarian. The problem
is that most people do not carry this logic any further than their
personal relationships. They rightly understand that theft, murder,
and rape are not good things for individuals to participate in,
then somehow ignore the immorality of these evils on a mass scale
by referring to them as taxes, war, and regulations. This is why
statists get annoyed when we libertarians don’t use their euphemisms
to describe their acts of aggression. Your belief in the role of
government comes down to the question of voluntary versus coercive

Ron Paul certainly does not go far enough in promoting the “voluntary
versus force” philosophy, but in my opinion he is by far the
best choice for real “change” in the direction toward a society
of voluntarism. Everyone else is arguing over which tactic of coercive
force will benefit you the most at the expense of others. My grandmother
recently lamented how she did not know who to vote for because her
father had always studied “the issues” and would inform her of which
candidate would do the most for farmers. This is the thinking that
needs to be reversed. I tactfully propose that liberty is best for

Ron Paul will
not promise you a better life, but he is promising to be the champion
of liberty. With the Executive Branch of government now almost a
de facto elected monarchy, I cannot legitimately endorse him or
anyone else to take on this illegitimate power to run our lives.
I can, however support Ron Paul as the only one we can trust to
resist the power of the office as someone who will work to minimize
its authoritarian rule and return that power to Congress and the

It is my thought
that many if not most Obama supporters, deep down, really support
liberty, too. Thus, my plea to them to reconsider their support
for him. They certainly are on record as supporting "change."
Well, Ron Paul offers real change.

This is why
I have decided to support Ron Paul for President this year. If it
requires a third-party bid to continue the revolution, I will be

5, 2008

James Dunavant
[send him mail] is
a development professional in Nashville, Tennessee.

Email Print