I usually try to answer all the e-mails that come to me with at least one response, even the hate mail (Just yesterday, I wrote to someone: ” Thanks for your assertion that I “know nothing” and am “downright stupid.” I would like to point out…”).

But I’m not sure what to do about the Ron Paul hate mail.

I reviewed his new book, The Revolution (no relation to Prince’s stellar backing band), and I found it wanting:

People have called Paul a Libertarian, but that’s not strictly true; neither is he a strict Constitutionalist, as many of his single-minded followers insist. Paul is the kind of nerd who still owns issues of The Objectivist Journal that were published in 1966—he named his son Rand Paul in honor of Ayn Rand, after all. The president Paul claims most respect for is the nerdy, ineffectual Taft.

Unsurprisingly, I got letters. The one that was published this week, in our letters section, was relatively nice—at least he offered to take me to lunch—but I just feel like any sort of response would be like pissing into the wind.

But in the interest of fairness, I’m going to run the two other letters so that they can have their day in the sun. If you’re reading this, boys, I’m sorry I didn’t write back. I hope that publishing your letters unmolested will be acceptable enough. Because they’re long letters, they’re after the jump. I encourage you to go take a look; the first e-mail accuses Obama of being a servant of the New World Order, and the second one is entirely unaware of the fact that his hero and political savior is a huge Objectivist.

Hello, This letter is regarding the review by Paul Constant of the Ron Paul book “The Revolution: A Manifesto”. Basically, I am disgusted with Constant and I think he is an idiot. On top of that, I don’t think he realizes what profound influence Ron Paul has had on the general public and to say that his only achievement of his presidential campaign is “successfully renting a blimp” is simply absurd and shows how ignorant this boy is of politics. Hey, wake up Constant, just because the main stream media chose maliciously not to report on Ron Paul and the supporters he was gathering because they were shitting their pants in fear of what the man proposed, doesn’t mean the millions of supporters didn’t exist. To bring you in on some facts of the Ron Paul campaign, here they are:

Much, much more, including government cheese, why I care more about my hair than the Constitution, and why Ron Paul was against World War I, after the jump.

1. Ron Paul received the largest amount of campaign contributions from people working in the military. 2. Ron Paul is overwhelmingly supported by US veterans. 3. He raised $5 million in the third quarter of his run. In spite of his status as a lower-tier candidate without strong name recognition, he still managed to raise half as much as front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. (and you have to take into consideration the fact that most people contributing to his campaign only donated an average of $20)

Honestly, I don’t feel like writing out more because I know that you are an Obama supporter although you have no idea what his voting record is or what policies he is proposing. You don’t understand that the United States is a Constitutional Republic not a Socialist country; and I know you are a socialist and want to be nannied by the government because you are weak and by the looks of your picture you seem to be worried more about your sunglasses and hair than the true state of this country. Well, good luck to you. Sadly, you won’t see what a New World Order trader Obama is because Hillary will be elected then another fake government terrorist attack will come and you will end up standing in a line for government cheese. Hey, but you will definitely see who the New World Order is and what global government feels like, that I guarantee and one day you will re-think your skewed views, unfortunately it will be too late.

Sincerely,
True Patriot who believes the US Constitution is NOT a living document fuckhead

In my defense, the last time I combed my hair was three years ago, for my sister’s wedding. I’m what they call low-maintenance. And then came this one:

I want to rebut a book review buy your paul constant regarding Ron Paul’s book. The review itself did little more than attack Paul’s character and make weak associations about his life with his argument in the book. I am a poli sci student at the UW and regularly read the Stranger and usually find the book reviews to be informative and inciteful and was surprised to see such poor work analysis. Paul is not merely one of the original intent douche bags that argues their particular view of the constitution in the place of a centered and fascist one. He comes from a view point that is grounded in historical context and agrees not only with the document itself but also with the state conventions and debates that followed the signing of the document by the delegates. The most obvious and ridiculous accusation is that Paul is an objectivist. He did name his kid Rand and I do not know if it was after Aryn Rand, a hellatious bitch to say the least, but I do not see the connection between that and his book. Rand was a militant Atheist and a bit of a nationalist both of which hardly fit the protestant classical liberal anti-statist positions of Paul (damn thats a lot of qualifiers). On top of that Paul was opposed to entering the WWI, WWII, the cold war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and the first Gulf War and its sequel. He voted against the authorization of the Iraq war on the grounds that Congress cannot give permission to go to war but only to declare war; that is unless that is only what HE believes the constitution says and not what it means (I am being facetious). He added an amendment that would have declared war against Iraq and then voted against it. He opposes the wealth extraction from the population into the pockets of military contractors and other grievances that only a strong central government can enact upon the people. While he is opposed to government controls on pollution that is only part of the story, as he has said several times in public debates and probably in his book; of which I have not read. He thinks that this could properly be controlled through civil means rather than federal control by means of the protection of property rights, including the right to sue for air pollution which would drain the company coffers of those that are protected from law suits by the government right now and thus raise the cost of emitting pollution into a fiscal category that would make it monetarily prohibitive. On the issue of productive rights that has so long acted as a distraction from political discourse in this country I, an anarchist atheist that has little patience for Christianity, support him. I would not vote for him into state office or municipal office but I sure as hell would vote for him into federal office because he says that he does not want to centralize domestic policy. He is right, no matter how much it hurts, that Roe v Wade was decided improperly because it wasn’t in the jurisdiction of the Supreme court; a notion that may sound absurd now but was very prevalent in early America when the States had the authority over domestic policy rather than the Federal mandate system we all live under now. If Alabama chooses to ban abortion, a policy that is factually detrimental to the society, than so be it. Let them degrade their own society and let the division of powers set up in constitution vanquish us in this state from those in Alabama having any say in OUR (Washington’s) domestic policy. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone in this country that thinks that the federal government is accessible. It isn’t and it wasn’t designed to be. The institutions that have the largest affect on your life are the ones that should be closest and most accessible and in this regard Paul, despite being pro-life Christian, would be someone that the entire country could unite around. He is anti-war, he doesn’t think that state should define what a marriage is or issue marriage licenses (because is a religious institution and has no place in government), he supports sound money that cannot be inflated to fill the pockets of defense contractors and the DoD employees that end up on their payrolls, he is against the war on drugs, he supports the bill of rights, he is against the militarization of the police, he opposes “free trade” deals that he calls managed trade that usurps the American legal system and sovereignty in the name of the so-called free trade, and many many other policy positions that would free us, as the state of Washington, to have greater control over our own affairs. A breath of fresh air in comparison to nearly 60 years of fucktards in power, the expansion of the federal government, and militarization of our society.

In short, analyze the fucking book and don’t attack a serious political engagement as representative of Mr. Paul’s character flaws. I don’t think there is any truth whatsoever in framing Paul as an objectivist. They may unite under the libertarian principle but to claim he views the constitution through an objectivist lens, unless he is saying explicitly that to be the case, is just posturing and ignorance on your part. Besides I think his kids name is Randall.

But if Ron Paul isn’t an Objectivist, why has he subscribed to the Objectivist Journal since at least 1966? And why did he write in his book about wanting Alan Greenspan to autograph a copy of the Objectivist Journal that Greenspan wrote an article in, because he claimed to admire Greenspan’s Objectivist ideals? And why did he name his son Rand (not Randall) Paul? I still feel guilty for not responding personally, though.