The Six Million Dollar Man Could Concentrate on Right to Assemble and be Anonymous
Submitted by Veterans Abroad on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 09:24Regarding the "Six Million Dollar Man" theme blazing across the blogosphere today regarding Ron Paul, the record haul has been noticed.
But the Neocons are still in denial. Take the Instapundit himself, Glenn Reynolds. He commented yesterday when there was a $2 Million amount collected at Noon his time. But his comment showed that the Neocons are hung up about sex.
He pointed to a Fox News video about the Bunny Ranch brothel "pimping for Paul". The Fox News team included a "priest" who lectured a young prostitute using radical feminist terms (she was apparently being exploited by the patriarchy). He then brought up the entirely discredited concept that the World Cup Soccer championships last year brought a lot of "trafficked women" into Germany (at the time, the German public was infuriated with Condi Rice's meddling while pointing out that the mostly empty and strictly regulated brothels went bust that month because men were too interested in watching soccer at that time).
Another issue mentioned on blogs is that Republicans tend to believe that "We are entitled to privacy but not anonymity".
What?
This goes along with the outrageous trend among Republicans to say that, because a few sex offenders are not in jail where they should be if they are too dangerous to interact anonymously with the rest of us, we must sacrifice our right to be anonymous in assembling with others.
But anonymity in dealing with others is the corner stone of natural law.
I believe that Ron Paul can DESTROY the Neocons if he concentrates on this and not the Iraq War.
Because the Neocons are hung up about sex (Huckabee condemns wearing Mini-Skirts) and about taking away our right to be anonymous, Ron Paul can pry away even the most hardline war hawks and put them into his camp in the next 3 weeks.
Remember: A lot of Ron Paul supporters are pro-Iraq-War but still see every other candidate as dangerous for our freedoms as citizens.
And here is another issue:
The Republicans and Democrats all feel that US Citizens BELONG to the US Government even when travelling overseas.
It began after 9/11 with things that nobody felt like arguing with (except Ron Paul):
1) Johnny Taliban was tried in a US court for fighting against US troops in Afghanistan. Most of us agreed with this, although it amounted to extra-jurisdictional International Police Powers over US citizens abroad and set the state for the laws below.
2) The Protect Act made the US the first government in history to apply an age of consent law to its citizens who were not in the US (and citizens could be arrested for doing something overseas that was legal in their home state). Most of us agreed with this because it got 30 pedophiles imprisoned in the past few years...but at the cost of justifying International Police Powers for the US Congress.
3) Because of 9/11, US citizens abroad are no longer "allowed" to have bank accounts with more than $10K without reporting the details to the US Government. WHAT!? Nobody is talking about this outrageous declaration that US citizens BELONG to the US government which has International Police Powers over them.
4) The IMBRA law makes it illegal for Americans to be introduced to foreigners on a dating website (whose primary focus is introducing Ameicans to foreigners) unless the American loses his or her anonymity and has a background check. IMBRA takes away the foreigner's right to control their own level of security by having to sign written approval to communicate with the American that can be shown to the US government. This is an outrageous declaration that Americans BELONG to the US government and that foreigners need to be "protected" from unregulated contact with Americans.
A Republican judge (Bush appointee) said of the latter law "The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner". This amounts to the US federal government having international police power over everyone who wants to meet online, even if the Internet server is located in another country.
If Ron Pail wants to be polling (on the landlines) at 20% or higher by January, it might be best not to hide his best arguments under a barrel. At least half of all American citizens (including half the people who voted for Bush in the 2004 primaries) would be horrified to read about how the Democrats and Republicans have been systematically trying to take away our right to be anonymous and assemble and communicate with others, as well as our status as free individuals not "belonging to the state".
A good campaign slogan would be:
"Ron Paul: Because the rest think that they OWN us"
Concentrate
I personally think Paul should start conentrating more on his experience as well as touch on his religious beliefs.
Yeah, Huckabee's been a govenor, and Paul's only a Congressman, but Paul has also been an OB/GYN and a flight surgeon in the Air Force. Huckabee's previous experience is limited to being a Christian preacher.
That gives Huck some sharp-witted charisma, but not much else.
Ron Paul is a Christian too, and he's been obsessed with economic theory for years.
Paul's good for health care, Paul's good for the military, Paul's good for the economy, and Paul's even good for men and women of faith.
Huckabee only seems to be good for Christians and the welfare state.
America should be so much more than a hawkish, smooth-talking theocracy of hand-outs.
"no fundamental liberty interest" ??
good points re some vital issues...
"The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".
What on earth???
Yes, voters need to know how strongly Ron Paul condemns such invasion of privacy! I can't imagine any voter not being able to relate to that! (okay, well except the rabid neo-cons...)
Witness the POWER of an IDEA - the MASSIVE Ron Paul Rallies! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q
Thomas Rose was a Bush appointee and said that
Judge Thomas Rose said that just before Memorial Day 2006:
www.veteransabroad.com/denied.pdf
He also said:
1) American men must not be advertised to foreigners as desirable friends. Instead, there needs to be a warning label.
2) Americans still maintain the right to assemble because there are plenty of venues for Americans to meet foreigners besides dating websites...and the option to use other venues means that we have freedom.
These neocons/Democrats seem to dominate the US population because someone the other day said "If you look at someone's online profile and you are upset that the US government wants to block you (or background check you) in order for you to meet that person...then you are clearly in love with a photograph and should, as a crazy obsessed person, be blocked from meeting anyone."
That is circular logic.
They also like to say "If you don't have anything to hide, you will be just fine with federally mandated background checks for meeting others online".
In the 1930s, in a certain country in Europe, they would say the same thing.
That's a good idea
If ever there was a view that today's Dems and Repubs share, it is the belief that they do own us. It is up to us to put them in their place.
America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. - Ayn Rand
"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions." Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
No Internet Regulation
I don’t think that our government should be making laws that regulate how people interact on the Internet. I am glad that Dr. Paul is opposed to this.
This IMBRA law (which mainly involves the Internet) is just one more example of our government regulating its citizens. What is the point of freedom if you don’t have the freedom to assemble without the permission of the government? The law may technically regulate so-called “marriage brokers”, but its practical effect is the regulation of people and how they communicate. What a bad law.