Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada.
—
The article on left-leaning Counterpunch today really intrigued me. It’s titled Welcome to the Revolution by “radical” screenwriter Donna J. Volatile. I read Counterpunch quite regularly, as it gives me a good finger on the pulse of the more realistic left-wing pundits.

Ms. Volatile writes: “Are we to forever be held back by issues, such as abortion or even National Health Care, an issue that never gets delivered in the first place (we are no closer now than we were way back when) ? These issues are by design. Abortion keeps us divided. National Health care lends us false hope.” This is the absolute best comment I’ve read on Counterpunch, and maybe the best comment on the National Health care and abortion debate ever. It is concise and clear and makes complete sense, for right-wingers, left-wingers and libertarians. These are two issues that are non-issues in terms of there being any sensible change. The division on the national level for both of these issues seems to be nearly 50/50, which means a change won’t happen.

Ms. Volatile’s answer is to change the perspective of what a Paul Presidency is important to ALL people, and not just those living in the U.S.: we need peace, and we need it today. By peace, I’m not saying world peace. I’m saying peace coming from the actions of the government, who is not governing “Of the People, For the People and By the People.” There are too many issues that are too complex in nature to be spoken as a soundbite for the nightly news. Those issues are clearly enunciated and described in length by Dr. Paul, and people are listening.

Dr. Paul is a Congressman today. That experience is a key element, I think, for a pro-peace run for President. His duty today is to write the bills that may become law, based on his understanding of the Constitution. When other bills are proposed, his duty is the duty that most Congressmen ignore today: read the bill, see if every element fits a Constitutional power alloted to Congress, and vote based solely on protecting the Constitution, regardless of what seems right or wrong. If the Constitution doesn’t approve of every aspect of a bill, you must vote no. If the People want the bill passed at a National level, there must be a proposed, and passed, Amendment to the Constitution. That’s plain and simple.

A Paul Presidency means no more Executive laws written by the President. It also means having a President who understands his oath taken at the start of taking office: to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Constitution has many enemies domestically, most of them in Federal government or working for Federal agencies. Paul’s beliefs on many issues will be a non-issue in terms of being enacted as law unless Paul convinces the People to convince their legislators to make those beliefs law. Yet Paul’s power as the Executive of the Executive branch might have short term benefits. Paul will definitely read every approved bill that comes to his desk, and you know he will speak in great detail as to why bills are unconstitutional. It would not surprise me to have him call out the special interests that want the bill signed into law: bullying those special interests into the limelight may show the average voter what a traitor their legislator is to the Constitution, and to their freedoms and needs and the ability for them to meet those needs independent of a legal mandate.

I wonder what tactics Paul could use as President to stop pursuing certain unconstitutional actions. Could he tell the DEA to stop going after non-violent drug offenders? Could he tell the FBI, NSA and CIA to stop spying on citizens? Could he fire the top managers of various bodies within the Federal government? I’m not certain. The current powers of the Executive branch are massive, and these extended powers may be useful (as long as they’re Constitutional) in turning off certain branches of government. While he is elected to enforce and execute the laws of the Federal government, that is his secondary responsibility. His primary responsibility is to focus on the Constitutionality of his actions. Since employees under him work for him, his “boss-powers” to tell an employee to stop following unconstitutional laws is a provision that might have Constitutional muster.

Imagine if Paul told a certain branch to stop enforcing a law, and the media called him out on it. In hours, he could prescribe the solution, and explain the sickness of why the law should not be enforced. Calling out the special interests would be an amazing thought, considering that most Presidents have just signed most bills into law, regardless of campaign promises.

Paul isn’t promising anything, though. He put his views out there, but admits that his job is to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to explain that we need to be responsible for ourselves, and be able to receive the benefits, and profits, that come with individual responsibility and thrift.

Let us all support the message together: lefties, righties, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, by making a nice donation this week to the campaign. If you don’t vote, consider just spending $50 to promote the message of freedom.

I was doing one of my usual Google searches for new Ron Paul articles, and I came across this:

The text is from a now dead link over at the Miami Herald’s blog, and it said:

“Did someone forget to tell Democratic candidate Ron Paul that tomorrow’s debate at the University of Miami is for Republicans? If not, he picked a tough weekend to get media attention. He’s giving interviews at the Mayfair Hotel in”

The Old Media writer, Beth Reinhard, was ranting about why Democratic candidate Ron Paul was campaigning in Miami if the debate was for Republicans.

Putting two and two together, we can see that those who some think are esteemed and well educated in the old media are merely just confused and uncertain about the facts. Reinhard should be thankful that her blog post didn’t make it to the Miami Herald itself, hopefully due to a consistent editor catching this significant error.

Nonetheless, it makes me wonder how many articles are being written by the Old Media that get dumped because the facts don’t match up to reality.

Nice job, Reinhard. Hopefully others take notice of your error…

From ABCNews.com we find that John Stossel has an hour long interview with Dr. Paul.

Stossel and ABC will post 5 more video segments next week. Something to watch and watch for.

From the article:

In our hour-long interview, Paul and I discussed illegal immigration, the Iraq War, when war is necessary, the proper role of government, health care, drug laws, prostitution and more.

Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That’s in part because he’s raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It’s one reason we’re posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he’s the most Googled presidential candidate.

Next week, ABCNEWS.com will post five additional video segments and articles from the interview.

On Monday, we’ll examine the role of government — what the federal government should and shouldn’t do. Tuesday, Paul gives his views on when war is justifiable. On Wednesday we’ll tackle immigration. Like many of his GOP colleagues, Paul opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and wants more border enforcement. But he says the real problem lies with birthright citizenship and other enticements of the American welfare state. On Thursday we discuss health care, and on Friday, we’ll discuss one of the Texas congressman’s favorite topics, the Constitution.

From The Telegraph:

It may seem sometimes that running for president is all about corporate jets, Secret Service protection and a fawning entourage. Not for Ron Paul, the libertarian anti-war outsider generating some fervent support and impressive fundraising totals. There he was at Washington Reagan airport last night lugging his bags onto the same Continental Airlines flight to Houston as me. On his own. Not an aide in sight.

If you are a voter, this would have to be the best reason to vote for the guy: proof that he isn’t pandering to special interests, the government-mercantilist complex, or taking advantage of “free” government security guards.

Absolutely perfection in a small photo for a small man running for what should be a small position.

Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—

I currently maintain, operate and pay for 5 WiFi connections throughout the Chicago area (at my homes, and at my offices). This number will grow to around 10, soon, as I will have more WiFi routers in offices I spend time in.

All my WiFi connections are publicly available (although the public connections are throttled to limit people hogging up my connection). I’ve named all my WiFi access points “RonPaul” As I post this, 4 of my neighbors are using one of my connections. Another 3 people in an apartment building next to my office are also using that connection. Even though the signal is fairly weak, it is a great outreach tool to get people to see his name. I also have setup the routers to pop up my own personal “landing page” with a Google search, a short column of current news, and the header promotes the Ron Paul 2008 website. I also include my email address on that landing page so people can email me for free technical support (I’ve received over 20 emails in 3 months). When I reply to them, I ask them to kindly make a $5 donation to the Ron Paul website if they appreciate my free Internet service. I have no idea if any of them have, but it’s a great outreach tool.

If you use WiFi at home, or at a business you own, consider opening up your WiFi access point for anyone to use, and name it RonPaul. Many routers have the option to set up a landing page, and if yours doesn’t, there are other options out there to get that working. It’s not a necessary step, but its a nice way to get to know those who you’re helping, and it helps get the name recognition out there to people who may not be big into watching TV or read the newspaper articles on Dr. Paul.

Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—

Since I am a anti-voting anarcho-capitalist, many of my friends, family and readers wonders why I support Ron Paul for President so strongly. I get at least one to two e-mails per day asking if I have given up my stance on anti-voting. I have not.

My support for Dr. Paul is based on his message: contrarian, strongly anti-state, and meek. There are less than 10 politicians in the world that I respect, and Dr. Paul is one of them. If you watch a video of him today versus one 20 years ago, his message is strangely consistent. If it wasn’t for the greying of hair, you’d be hard pressed to figure out when the video was recorded. This is an amazing consistency.

This series of posts will reflect both positive and negative attributes on Ron Paul, from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. One of my biggest concerns on Dr. Paul is something that is a HUGE positive for most voters: Ron Paul is not anti-war. Supporters, and the campaign, should stop immediately in using the term anti-war.

Many pro-war conservatives attack Dr. Paul because they believe he is anti-war. Many anti-war conservatives and liberals support Dr. Paul because they believe he is anti-war. Many common Christians are fearful of a Ron Paul presidency because they believe he is anti-war. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ron Paul is pro-peace. Being pro-peace means you strongly believe in peace, normally aiming in that direction. It doesn’t mean you believe peace is always the answer, 100%. Because of Paul’s support for a paleo-constitutional position on all things political, he has no reason to act peacefully 100% of the time. In cases of Iraq, Korea, Cuba, Syria, Bosnia, and other areas of warfare incidents, Paul is decidedly against military action. His primary solution is the peaceful one: open trade, open communications, and open rules regarding individuals contributing to causes abroad. He rightfully believes the State can not, and should not, ever give money, preferential treatment, or weapons to another State. Let the individuals contribute to the campaigns abroad that they support, and let individuals trade with any other individual in the world.

This is not an anti-war position! I am truly anti-war, seeing absolutely no cases where war is acceptable. I believe that World War I and II were not in the United State’s interest, and many wars before then either. My position is anti-war.

Should the People of the United States unite behind an aggressor, and intend to attack a foreign State, Dr. Paul as President would lead the military to action, but he would do it Constitutionally. This should be the position most voting Americans should take as the natural one. It is not an anti-war position. One Congress debates the issue of declaring war against another State, the People should and could have access to their Representatives to submit their opinions. Each Representative in the House would have to make an individually-recorded decision for or against the Declaration of War. Once a formal Declaration has been voted on, and passed, the President would immediately assume the role of Commander in Chief. He would call up reserve troops (who would naturally be working in the private sector, until orders are made), train and produce a plan of attack that would be submitted to Congress with a realistic budget and timeline, and order the attack.

A Ron Paul-run war would be quick, with the idea that a fast and aggressive attack being the best one to turn away offenders. It would not be an open-ended, non-budget, non-directed war waged by the Executive branch alone. By having Congress involved in the process at each step, many individuals would have to accept responsibility if the war did not work, or ran over budget or time. This is a Constitutional war position, still in step with a generally pro-peace position. Today’s actions in Iraq and the 130 other regions we have troops is decidedly NOT Constitutionally solid, since Congress took no vote to support any Declarations of War. Instead of being able to blame 436 politicians, we can currently put the blame on a handful who actively moved to action. I do think Congress is complicity in providing the Executive branch with the power to move militarily, and those Congressional Representatives should be removed from office and tried on treason to the Constitution, but the rest of the country is dumb and blind to the atrocities committed against the Rule of Law and the Constitution.

Thanks to Voice of John, I have accepted a pure pacifist position. I am truly anti-war, as I believe it would be impossible for a foreign country to over-run the United States due to the ideology of freedom that SHOULD exist. If the United States was attacked, I absolutely believe that millions of citizens would ignore the current infringements on the second amendment, and move to defend quickly. 330 million citizens can not be taken over by any State or force. It just isn’t going to happen.

Paul’s position coalesces with mine most of the time, so I do support his pro-peace message, even if it doesn’t go far enough. I do believe, though, that a pro-peace position still has some inherent evilness to it, based on my moral belief of assuming a fully anti-war position.