Archive for July, 2007

Date: July 30th, 2007, Filed under Ron Paul

Over at our Ron Paul Banners site we posted a new topic to try to raise interest in printing and donating a huge photo mosaic banner to the Ron Paul campaign HQ to take “on the road” with the.

Go take a look — World’s Largest Ron Paul banner.

Comments: none

Date: July 21st, 2007, Filed under Ron Paul

I had a dream Saturday night… I figured I’d put it on digital paper and share.

What do you think? I’m no graphic designer, but here’s a stab…

Comments below, share the link!

Comments: 2

Date: July 20th, 2007, Filed under Anarcho-capitalism, Ron Paul

On Tuesday, July 17, 2007, the Executive Branch President signed an executive order that went nearly unannounced in the U.S. media, titled Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq. This order goes against Congress’ power to create new law, and is one example of the signing statements and executive orders that Dr. Ron Paul is vehemently against because it upsets the balance of powers set forth within the Constitution.

The second paragraph begins:

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.

Note the type that I bold-faced. The first part says “acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq.” This sounds safe, since we believe these powers would only be used by those who perform acts of violence against the President’s desires in Iraq. But the next part is completely unbelievable: “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq.” Undermining efforts is a very vague phrase, and one that can target almost any action that a person takes in response to the complete failure that the U.S. has on its hands in Iraq. Even speaking out against the War and the War effort could be construed as an “undermining effort.”

What is the penalty for “undermining efforts” in Iraq? The Executive Order continues:

all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

Here we see that the Secretary of the Treasury, in (private) consultation with the Secretaries of State and Defense, can block your property and interests in property. This means that everything you own can become State-owned without your knowledge, just for undermining efforts in Iraq. Speak your mind, lose your home, pension, stocks, bank accounts, cars and clothes.

Who is defined as covered by the Executive Order? Read on:

the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Yes, it means anyone who is here legally or illegally, citizen or not.

If you voted for the current administration, you have a big apology to make. You didn’t think through that violent act of voting for violence, and now you’ve put all of us in great risk. I’ll give you the chance to apologize right here, right now. If you’re going to vote again, can you at least vote for a person who has expressed as much hatred and fear of Executive Orders as I do? That person is Ron Paul. But please vote after you’ve apologized for the terrible mistake you’ve made.

Comments: none

Date: July 16th, 2007, Filed under Ron Paul

I got a fun link in my e-mail this morning to a post at FreeRepublic.com pointing to an article at NewsMax, a madhouse of pro-Bush, pro-State, pro-tyranny glory. The actual post is a decent overview of Ron Paul to be crossposted at FreeRepublic, but the fun part comes from the comments incited below. Warning to those with common sense and the ability to discern the truth of an individual versus the lies of a State.

Here’s a comment by pro-tyranny regular “Rodney King”:

Look, I don’t even agree with Paul on Iraq. Weather we should have gone in or not, that does not mean that you should just pull out once you are in.

For example, you decide to put a new roof on your house. Halfway through you realize maybe it was a harder job than you thought, and you wonder if you should have started in the first place. That does not mean that you don’t finish the job.

Here’s how I see it. Paul is wrong on that. But, he is right on everything else, and here are two of the things he is right on: Closing the border and turning back the tide of socialism.

The W foreign policy, although right on not pulling out of Iraq, is wrong on the other two issues.

What we are looking at now is almost perpetual war, while our enemies flood our borders and the State becomes like France where the people no longer have any will or incenetive to defend their country.

The muslims, over 50 years, take over. That is the path we are on now.

Let’s look at the example he cites: “For example, you decide to put a new roof on your house. Halfway through you realize maybe it was a harder job than you thought, and you wonder if you should have started in the first place. That does not mean that you don’t finish the job.” Many people will nod their head in agreement, because it seems to make sense.

Then I return with my response:

What a ridiculous comparison. You’re close, but not close enough.

For example, you decide to put a new roof on the house of a person you don’t really know a few towns over, against their will. You tell them it would be better for them, that their roof is no good. You go to their house, and start installing a roof, but only late at night. When they ask you to leave, you decide you’re also going to add a swimming pool for them in the yard, also doing construction late at night.

As things progress, you realize that your roof is costing you way more than you expected, and the pool is overrunning your budget.

You have two choices: continue to put a roof and a pool on a home of someone who doesn’t want you to do it, or just leave, realizing that it isn’t your home, and it isn’t your responsibility to fix what the homeowner didn’t find broken.

As I show, this wasn’t “our” roof that we were fixing, this was the “roof” of someone else, who doesn’t live near us, has little to do with us, and may have had a broken “roof” because we’ve been pushing around the “foundation” of their “house” since the 50s, never allowing any peace and progress to be made. If I was taking apart their “roof” for 50 years little by little, and then swooped in to fix it, the distant homeowner would still hate me. If the homeowner had the power to harm my home at little cost, they might.

I’m not blaming America first. The United States of America is not the citizens any longer, it is a figurehead State that calls itself “Of the People” and “For the People” but it is not “By the People” any longer. The Republic of indivudual States, is now a Democratic Nation. Democracy does not equal freedom.

Comments: 3

Date: July 16th, 2007, Filed under Anarcho-capitalism, Ron Paul

By A.B. Dada

—
I was sitting in a church yesterday talking to a friend about Ron Paul. He was reading through some of my Ron Paul Flyers that I started working on, and asking the basic questions that I hope the flyers will answer.

Eventually, he asked me why I want to see a smaller Federal government. I didn’t get into the fact that I want to see a non-existent government at the federal level, in fact I gave him a minarchist response to his question: because the more people a law encompasses, the easier it is to control that law via special interests.

Let’s look at a crazy idea: dismantle the FDA, and get all the U.S. citizens to disallow the individual States from having their own. This is just an example, not necessarily a recommendation; U.S. Constitutionally I believe that each individual State could have their own version of the FDA.

If the Federal State can not have an FDA, and the individual State can not have an FDA, you can bet that many, if not most, counties and/or towns would enact their own drug legislation. Each of these communities, based on the needs and wants of their populace, would decide on what was OK and what wasn’t. My town of Zion, Illinois might say that herbs and supplements must be a stringent testing standard (maybe a private-market competitive testing organization like the Underwriters Laboratories); your community might decide to have a “hands-off” approach and leave it to the doctors working with the populace.

My friend’s immediate answer was expected — “Imagine the mess the drug companies would have to go through to get their drug approved by every tiny village, county and doctor!” My answer was expected, too — “YES!”

As a law covers more people, the people behind the law are more distant from the people they govern. Your U.S. Congressman may have a house in your district, but it is doubtful they spend much time there. Instead, they are in Washington, away from those they govern. Your phone calls and letters are just more “spam” amongst thousands or tens of thousands of other people just like you. The lobbyists are the powerful ones — your letters are worthless except during election time; their money and discussions are constant.

If you restrict the Federal State from a particular market, the individual States would likely decide whether or not to regulate/tax the market. Yet even at the individual State level, your particular representative is still likely going to spend more time at the State’s Capitol than near their home in your area. The lobbyists for that given market would likely move from Washington to the individual State Capitols. But there is a bright response to this thought — instead of 10 lobbyists in Washington for a drug company, that same drug company would need maybe 250 lobbyists nationwide in all the State Capitols. This gives local businesses a lot more power against the large International company — the local business could actually afford to compete for lobbying attention with the Internationals.

What if an individual State decides to not interfere in the same market that the Federal State was Constitutionally limited against? It is likely that each town and county would consider involvement (as shown above). In this wonderful scenario, what the individual citizens of a given town would want would be the consideration for the smaller community. And in order to “woo” the politicians at the local level, the Internationals would need to hire tens of thousands of lobbyists, so the small business can still compete — but so can the individual! A lobbyist here in Zion, Illinois would be weak against the individual citizens of Zion, Illinois. Our representatives at the city level would be close to home, so we could often see them face to face. In my town, I actually know 5 of my “representatives” and they know me by name. One waved to me at Culver’s Butterburgers this weekend. I know I have the chance to explain my views, unlike my Illinois Congressman or my U.S. Congressman, who just send back form letters.

This is why I promote Ron Paul to my Progessive friends — their chance of passing their utopia of restrictive regulations and high taxes is much more likely at the local level, but ONLY if the Federal Government follows the Constitution. This is not just a libertarian dream, it is a dream for anyone who wants the State to provide something, but still be open to hearing why you want (or don’t want) something regulated or taxes.

Ron Paul also wants this deconstruction to happen.

Comments: none

Date: July 15th, 2007, Filed under Uncategorized

By J.J. Miller

—
Since A.B. Dada, editor of (on-hiatus) Global Unanimocracy Network owns a not-for-profit print shop, he is now providing webspace and no-profit printing for Ron Paul flyers and banners. His hope is to provide a forum for Ron Paul supporters to discuss, design and distribute PDFs in a high quality fashion, and also offer these flyers pre-printed for those who don’t have the printers and tools to print them on their own.

If you’re a Ron Paul supporter, please take a visit to the new website at RonPaulFlyers.com which should be up today. Thanks for supporting a good cause. Remember, the primary goal is to share information so we can create free PDF flyers so everyone can print them as needed. The secondary goal is to provide CHEAP but high quality flyers. If we print them in quantities of 10,000 or more, we can sell them for a nickel a piece (this is full color offset printing on 80# glossy stock) or less.

—
Note: A.B. Dada does not vote, but he does support Ron Paul financially and does promote him to the voters in his life. He understands that most people will not accept the “Don’t vote” policy, and he wouldn’t mind living in a world with less tyranny.

Comments: none