More Deleted Debate Videos? Whats up with YouTube? ..

We need to focus single-mindedly on the primary task here -- electing Dr. Paul for president -- and not allow wedge issues, as some will see the second half of your comment above, to split us. First things first.

Your blog advice to the campaign is very insightful. Now you need to work out the advice for the supporters. As to the painting of Dr. Paul holding a newborn baby wrapped in the US flag -- beautiful idea, but the execution could use some refinements e.g. his facial expression, especially eyes, needs to be more radiant and beam joy of the new life (light, spark,...; doctor's eyes on the painting appear vacant, tired, his face slumped; he needs to look at the baby). The surrounding air needs to contain a play of light and dark, with baby and doctors face radiating light, surrounded by the dark, menacing shadows (a la subtle rorschach inkblot embedding further symbolism of this struggle, which goes long ways back).

This has been hashed and rehashed in more internet-centric forums than this, and always comes down to this: impossible.

The internet is a global creature, it has no boundaries save those that are without IP addresses to dish out. A U.S. law cannot be put in place to effectively 'control' the information being distributed on a global scale.

U.S. laws would not apply in any country exept the U.S.

And I know what the next comment will be - since I've experienced this particular debate numerous times. It will be 'but the whole world government is 'in on it', so we'll all be forced to comply on a global scale'.

This will never happen. First and foremost because there are too many countries who truly value their freedoms and would never agree to some sort of 'global plan' to police the internet.

Secondly because the entire world financial infrastructure depends on the internet - and any attempt to regulate it to such extremes would be met with something governments and businesses would not dare to bring about: a literal internet revolution.

Those who have considered such proposals have been quickly informed that the potential for a financial armageddon is there. There are many people with the technological capabilities to destroy financial, communication and other internet-dependent infrastructures armed with nothing more than a keyboard.

"Peace by superior firepower" is the term that fits best. If a law or regulation were created to give the power of the internet to any government, that government would be destroyed by the same computers it desires to control.

They can talk about it all they want - and, for the most part, the talk is just to gain votes from those who thrive on nanny state dependencies. But I wouldn't put too much concern on the potential for such controls to actually be put into place - because that door is closely guarded by an army of 'hackers', 'geeks' and 'nerds'.

:)