Response to Lynden Tribune Letter to the Editor

Just before the primary ballots were mailed out a letter to the editor was published in the Lynden Tribune. This letter attempted to paint all Ron Paul/Campaign For Liberty supporters as morally corrupt radical Libertarians who wanted to take over the local Whatcom County Republican Party. It also went on to provide a list of "authentic" republicans that it recommended voting for. A Campaign for Liberty member wrote a great letter in response to try to attempt to clear up the confusion that the letter to the editor writer had about us. I thought it was a great response and worthy of a larger audience.

August 6, 2008

Dear [Letter to the Editor Writer],

I am writing this to personally respond to your letter to the Lynden Tribune Editor on July 30 regarding a so-called "infiltration of the Republican Party by Whatcom Libertarians". First let me introduce myself. My name is [Campaign for Liberty Member], I am a Christian, a Professional Engineer, a part-time Bible teacher, and I am married and a father of six children. I also happen to be a patriot, love my country and a supporter of the Ron Paul campaign. My family has always been conservative republicans. Therefore I take offense at your implication that I am not an "authentic republican". Since I know many if not most of the people that actively supported Ron Paul in this county, I was incredulous at the amount of misinformation and false accusations contained in your letter.

Before I address your words point by point let me say this: The principles of the Ron Paul campaign and the Campaign for Liberty are simply to return our country to a Constitutional Republic and as far as the Republican Party is concerned, to return it to the principles of the Founders and the likes of "Mr. Republican", Robert Taft.

I hope you take the time to read the below response to the points and insinuations you made in your letter:

1. "infiltration" of the Republican Party. You must think that good intelligent conservative people getting involved in local politics because they are fed up with the unconstitutional policies of the federal government is a bad thing. Since that is our motive to be involved, your use of the word "infiltration" must mean then that those that you consider "authentic republicans" disregard the limitations placed on the federal government by We The People as codified in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and are threatened by us that hold that the government ought to be limited by those documents.

2. "Whatcom Libertarians": This charge is baseless. Although we are a diverse group, I don't know any that are members of the Libertarian Party. Secondly Ron Paul has been a Republican congressman for thirty years, and has the most consistent voting record to limit spending, limit government to its constitutional powers, decrease taxes, defend private property, defend the Bill of Rights, etc. I do find however that the Republican Party leadership has, especially since the 80's, moved so far to the Socialist side that anyone that mentions the Constitution is labeled a "Libertarian". Apparently contrasted from your point of view on the Socialist side of the Republican Party, we are libertarians.

3. "highly organized": Ours is a grassroots effort, not a top down decree as to what to believe, who to support etc. Top down dictates is what we have discovered is running the Republican Party, rendering the caucus and convention system a sham that doesn’t represent the people. However if we are viewed as highly organized we will take that as a compliment although I realize by the context which you used it in that you intended to invoke fear or apprehension.

4. "militant effort": Your use of the word militant is an absurd but typical propaganda technique. As far as I know you haven't met me and from asking around you haven't discussed politics with any of us that supported Ron Paul's campaign or at least those that are actively involved. Your use of this word is nothing more than fear mongering by using a word that invokes images of armed and dangerous individuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

5. "seizing control ......" Once more you use a word to invoke a false image of a person or persons using violence or strong arm tactics to steal something that isn't theirs. The Ron Paul campaign was made up of peaceful citizens that worked hard through the political process to support a candidate that stands for true Republican principles. If there has been any "seizing control" of the party it has been by NeoCons bent on destroying the foundations of which this country was founded. If there has been any "seizing" it has been by those that blindly follow the Party leadership in unethically stifling debate or voting at State conventions.

6. "alien worldview": I would certainly be interested in discussing this with you in person to find out exactly what you consider an "alien worldview". In your mind is, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers for the consent of the governed." an "alien worldview"? That in a nutshell is what this so-called "highly organized militant" group believes in.

7. "radical individualism": I'm not sure what exactly you intend to mean by this. But we stand for the preservation of our unalienable rights. We also understand the proper purpose and jurisdiction of government which is to secure those rights and protect the just from the unjust. We also believe in the rule of law as applied to government. Nowhere in the limited delegated powers given to the Federal Government by We The People is there any power to legislate morality or possession of substances. While I don't support the abuse of drugs of any kind whether legal or illegal, the Federal Government has no delegated authority to make possession of these items a crime. Furthermore, it took an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw alcohol during the 1920’s prohibition; where is the amendment to the Constitution giving the government the authority to make other substances illegal? Or was that when we believed in adhering to the Supreme law of the land, and now we don't? I don't support homosexual marriage and a person should be astute enough to realize that this a tax and government benefit issue more than anything else, and if we returned the government to its constitutional delegated powers then the "marriage" recognition issue would go away.

And when did we give the authority to the Federal Government to certify marriage? The answer is that we didn't. As a Christian you should know that the State and Church have no jurisdiction over marriage. That institution belongs solely to God and the family. If Christians would read the Bible and review the history of western civilization they would realize that whenever the State or the Church usurps jurisdiction over marriage then tyranny, corruption and abuse is the result. The Founders realized this, which is why you won't find any mention of marriage in the Constitution. Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Fascists on the other hand desire that the government control marriage, children, education, and everything else. Is that what your “authentic” republicans support?

8. Abortion: What did a Republican White House, Republican Senate, and a Republican Congress do in regards to abortion? Answer: Nothing. I personally believe that the unborn baby is a Life that should be protected by the Law and that no person shall be deprived of their Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. The debate is when does this Life begin? Therefore, you would know if you did some research before spouting off, that Ron Paul is the ONLY congressman to introduce an amendment to the US Constitution that would define Life beginning at conception. That would end the politicizing of the issue once and for all and cause the unborn Life to be protected by the Fifth Amendment. Barring that definition being embodied in the US Constitution, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction, and it becomes a State issue falling under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. If as you say "Republicans want cohesive, unambiguous federal protection of unborn babies" then why did they not overwhelmingly support Ron Paul's bill? The most feasible conclusion is that what they really want is the abortion issue as an ongoing political tool to garner votes of the uninformed masses who seem to be ignorant of how the law is supposed to work in this country.

As far as your term "checkerboard" approach, consider this:

"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and it's foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all it's subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson

By the way, I do not think God is approving of the hypocrisy of those that claim that they are "pro-life" and supposedly abhor the killing of the unborn American babies, while on the other hand support and even cheer acts of preemptive aggressive war such as sanctions, bombings, invasions, and occupations that kill untold numbers of innocents. Is that what the followers of the Prince of Peace are to support? I guess that leads me to the next item.

9. "Isolationists": People that support unlimited government spending and unconstitutional power in expanding and maintaining a global empire always throw out the irrational term "isolationist". Ron Paul and those like minded are not isolationists, but advocate a foreign policy of peace and free trade. We believe that we should return to the foreign policy of peace and free trade with all nations that are willing to and engage in "entangling alliances with none". This is the foreign policy that our Founding Fathers endorsed and was an American patriotic principle for at least the first hundred and fifty years. We believe that we should not try to impose our self righteous view on sovereign nations by force of arms, sanctions, foreign aid, and other disruptive, coercive and imperial techniques. The interventionist foreign policy of the last one hundred years has been a failure and threatens our liberty and security by spawning hatred and blowback against a political, economic, and military invader. Finally it is immoral and dishonest to tax us and future generations by inflating the money supply through printing more fiat money to fund this foreign policy of empire and intervention as well as fund domestic social programs.

In short our current foreign policy of hubris is unconstitutional and leads to the removal of the very liberties our forefathers shed their blood for. For example the War on Terror has spawned the creation of more Federal Departments and Agencies to spy on Americans, it has brought about a redefinition and acceptance of torture of prisoners, it has all but eliminated Habeas Corpus, It has increased police powers in violation of the 4th amendment, it has limited freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and will soon require a National ID card, so that Americans will have to show "Papers". All because the government through propaganda has convinced the American people to be afraid.

On the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war here is what Dwight Eisenhower said: "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." Why did Americans and especially Christians listen?

On foreign policy and war we would do well to listen to the Founders and ask ourselves: Were these men "isolationists" or did they have wisdom gained from a knowledge of the history of the world, and an understanding of the character of man and government?

James Madison put it this way:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other."

"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it."
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"War...should only be declared by the authority of the people...instead of the government which is to reap its fruits."

Thomas Jefferson said it this way:
"If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest."

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

George Washington said:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force...Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

In conclusion, you mention that our "rhetoric implies" that we would not vote for McCain. I can't speak for others on that issue, but for myself I can say this: How can any principled person vote for the most liberal, socialist candidate the Republican Party has ever put forth? McCain is substantially no different than Obama. Both are for Big Government, More Government Spending, and the continuing of the demise of the Republic. Their rhetoric only differs on minor points on how to further the overblown government and spend more money. We supported the only candidate that stands consistently for the conservative values and principles of limited government. The Party Leadership and The Media rejected that candidate and selected McCain as their candidate. It would go against my principles, my ethics, and subject me to God's judgment to vote for such a man. My loyalty is in this order, God, Family, Country. Political party is a tool to support those priorities; therefore if a candidate violates the first priorities then he cannot get my support or vote. If more people would think like that and not just blindly follow a party or a man, we would be a lot freer and much more prosperous. An “authentic” Republican is not a blind follower of the Party leadership, but a supporter of a set of principles. When the Party Leadership violates those principles then the real patriots and Republicans are to speak out against it, not lick their boots and follow.

Lastly, your tactics of spreading letters around neighborhoods listing who you think the "authentic" republican PCO candidates are is dishonest and unethical. You are making claims about people you don't know and have never spoken with. You are spreading falsehoods and tale bearing, both of which are condemned by the Bible you claim to believe. This tactic will be discussed with the local leadership of the GOP as I am sure they don’t endorse it, and it is certainly against good ethics.

I suggest you get to know us, and I welcome a personal discussion with you over coffee to discuss these issues and any others you would like. I believe that you will find that we have more in common than you think, and rather than name calling you might actually find common ground with us and make some friends.

Sincerely,

Campaign For Liberty Member