My response to a letter in the local paper about RP

This is my response to Jeff, a local resident who wrote a letter to the newspaper as a reaction to one of my wife's letters about Ron Paul:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From his letter to the Editor in the December 12th issue of this newspaper, it appears that Mr. Jeff S**** jumped into a discussion without reading the original letters which spawned the discussion, while presuming, for some reason, that he was coming in on the beginning of the discussion. He seems to think that the letter written by my articulate (if I may say so) wife, Candace J, and another letter written by another articulate supporter of Ron Paul in Smallville, regarding Paul's positions on Social Security, were the only letters written in support of Dr. Paul.

In fact, my wife had previously written a letter in support of Ron Paul, in which she mentioned his position on almost every matter, including foreign policy, which is one of the foundations of his run for the presidency. Being limited by space and time, Mrs. J could not mention every subject under the sun, and did not touch on Paul's stance on Social Security. In a letter to the Star, a resident of Bourbon pointed out this omission by Mrs. J. The letters to which Mr. S**** refers were written in response to this letter from the resident of B******, and are therefore on the one subject of Social Security.

Most supporters of Ron Paul see Social Security for the Ponze scheme that it is, but that doesn't mean we "conclude that the most pressing issue is how to fund Social Security," as Mr. S**** writes. That was his conclusion, based on coming in late in the discussion without noticing that other letters had led to the discussion of Social Security.

Mr. S****'s insinuation that my wife or any other supporter of Ron Paul does not promote some of Paul's stances because they are afraid of being labeled as "anti-patriotic" shows not only that he never read the first letter to this paper written by my wife, but that he is not paying any attention to even mainstream news stories about Ron Paul's campaign, and what his supporters are saying. Opposition to the war is one of the constant themes of the Ron Paul campaign, and I know of no supporter of Paul that is the least bit afraid of being labeled "anti-patriotic" by promoting this position, although I do know some Paul supporters that don't share his opposition to the war.

I also find it ironic that Mr. S**** lectures Paul supporters on the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is the only candidate with substantial support in either of the major parties that advocates an immediate end to the war in Iraq.

Democrats supported the war in Iraq until it became unpopular. Ron Paul opposed it from the beginning, on sound reasoning, stating over and over again that we should be going after those that took credit for the events of 9/11, who were not in Iraq and were sworn enemies of the regime in Iraq, and not get distracted with nation-building.

The foreign policies of the two major political parties are virtually identical today. When Bill Clinton was president, Democrats and Neo-Conservatives such as Bob Dole and George W. Bush supported mass slander against the Serbian people, and bombing of civilians in Yugoslavia, all in support of a radically Islamic organization funded by Osama Ben Laden and tied to Albanian organized crime in the Balkans. We have troops in Kosovo to this day, protecting the Islamic terrorists there.

Bill Clinton tried to incite war with the regime in Iraq on more than one occasion, and was cheered for doing so by all major Democratic politicians at the time. In 1996, Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary-Of-State, stated, when asked about the estimated half-a-million Iraqi children that died due to U.S. sanctions on Iraq, "...we think the price is worth it." She and the Democrats and Neoconservatives in the GOP have never told us why the price is worth it.

The only people that have always opposed this meaningless and immoral foreign interventionism have been Traditional Conservatives like Ron Paul. If you want to continue the War in Iraq, and possibly expand the debacle to a much larger country (Iran), vote for ANY candidate in either of the two major parties except for Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. However, Kucinich and Gravel will seek to turn over even more American sovereignty to the United Nations, whereas Paul alone will seek to withdraw us from the U.N., and protect our national sovereignty.

If you want more Socialism ("any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" - Merriam-Webster) vote for any of the candidates of either party other than Ron Paul, and they will deliver it to you. If you believe in the role of government advocated by Patrick Henry, George Washington, and James Madison, vote for Ron Paul.