The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations withdrones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has wagedan unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Read it all at Salon.com.

This was not just an appearance on a late night talk show. This was a Ron Paul campaign rally.

During the final interview segment with Paul, Leno asked him his thoughts on the other candidates and went down the list by name. When he got to Bachmann, Ron Paul replied, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get them.” This probably didn’t win him any neo-conservative supporters. Then he doubled down on this when he replied similarly about Santorum saying he doesn’t like “gay people and Muslims.”  Wow. I can’t imagine that Santorum and Bachmann won’t issue a counter-attack soon.

This just further cements my point in previous articles. Ron Paul can and would beat Obama in the general election. His more difficult win is in the GOP primary.

During the appearance Twitter was about 99% positive about Ron Paul, including many tweets saying things like, “I wasn’t sure before, but now I’m definitely voting for Ron Paul.”

Now we can sit back and monitor how the pundits and other candidates react, if they react at all.

See the entire appearance below in 4 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0r0lRyiKY

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Isn’t this just more evidence that the TSA should be ABOLISHED, instead of reformed?

I wrote a letter telling Congress to do just that, and I invite you to do the same.

You may borrow from or copy this letter…

The TSA is under fire. So, it is trying to make some improvements, such as…

Transitioning away from “naked” body scanners. Their “reforms” even include a trusted flier program to enjoy a more streamlined screening experience. Sounds good, right?

But this proposal requires you to give up even MORE of your privacy.

It is fundamentally wrong that the people must request permission, from the federal government, to board an airliner.

The Supreme Court said in United States v. Guest (http://tinyurl.com/3dh25r8) that “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

The very existence of the TSA, however, spits in the face of the Constitution…

• In violation of the Fourth Amendment, it conducts unreasonable searches against EVERY flier, almost all of whom provide no cause for reasonable suspicion
• In violation of the Fifth Amendment, it denies the right to fly to those who refuse to cooperate — depriving them of liberty without due process of law

It is not surprising that an unconstitutional agency will abuse its power. Here’s just ONE list of ten TSA outrages: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274033/ten-tsa-outrages-charlie-cooke

No wonder people don’t want to fly. According to the U.S. Travel Association (http://tinyurl.com/3canjfy)...

• On average, each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening
• Which amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines, and other travel suppliers
• And there’s a huge loss of productivity from those who DO fly. Think of the time wasted at airports because travelers have to arrive early, uncertain about how long it will take to get through security

YOU know as well as I that if private screeners treated passengers the way the TSA does…

• They’d face lawsuits from the public and likely investigation by the Department of Justice
• And probable criminal prosecution under state laws

Heck, you or your colleagues would probably want to haul them up before a committee to demand answers!

Ironically, private screeners would NOT DARE treat their customers this way…

• Airlines have an interest in keeping their passengers safe
• Airlines also have an interest in making the passenger experience as enjoyable as possible

Under a private airline security system, airports, airlines, and their insurance companies would develop innovative, un-intrusive methods to keep passengers safe. The most effective methods would be adopted by more airlines, who unlike the TSA must satisfy customers.

Airline security may have been “private” before 9/11. But it was still tightly regulated. Congress should abolish the TSA, AS WELL AS federal regulations. Airlines and their insurance companies would be held liable for hijackings, terrorist attacks, or other mishaps.

I would feel safer on an airliner with PRIVATE security and DEREGULATED procedures.

END LETTER

You may send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

CHALLENGE: Make Bill Haynes of CMI Gold & Silver http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/ pay out $5,000!

YOUR BENEFIT: Every NEW dollar you give will be worth $2, thanks to Bill. Start a pledge, or make a donation. If you give $10, then it’s value is $20 — $100, then it’s worth $200. 

THE GOAL: Existing pledges and PayPal support + Bill’s challenge + matched funds from generous donors like you = Budget Achieved!

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer,

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

A dangerous bill has been approved by the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee that would ELMINIATE your online privacy. That’s why I sent a letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org’s Hands Off the Internet Campaign.

I urge you to send a letter. You may borrow from or copy this…

I insist that you oppose HR 1981, the so-called “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act.”

The very name of the bill is dishonest and offensive. It misleads the public into thinking the bill gives law enforcement expanded tools to protect children from pedophiles.

But actually, it gives law enforcement broad powers to examine ANYONE’s Internet activities, for ANY reason. According to CNET (http://cnet.co/oU5t35):

* It would require commercial Internet providers “to store… customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses.”
* Rep. Zoe Lofgren says this would create “a data bank of every digital act by every American” that would “let us find out where every single American visited Web sites.”
* If the law passed, criminals would simply go to libraries or coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.

In addition…

* ISP’s will have to reconfigure their systems to accommodate the data retention requirements — an expense they will surely pass on to their customers (to you)
* Combing through mostly irrelevant records of innocent Americans is a highly INEFFICIENT form of catching criminals

As Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation puts it, HR 1981, “would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American… Such a scheme would be as objectionable to our Founders as the requiring of licenses for printing presses or the banning of anonymous pamphlets.” (http://bit.ly/rffep9)

The First and Fourth Amendments guarantee my right to anonymity and to privacy. Both disappear if the government tracks my online activities.

Uphold your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Oppose HR 1981!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

DownsizeDC.org is one of 30 organizations that had sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee concerning HR 1981. You can read that letter here.

And we urge you to share with your friends who are concerned about liberty and privacy. Go to our blog to “like” and “tweet” this message: http://bit.ly/qkBXM3

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

The Texas House unanimously passed a bill holding Transportation Security Agency (TSA) agents accountable for touching people’s private parts without probable cause. In response, the Department of Justice threatened to ground flights in Texas. DoJ’s threat caused the bill to die in the Texas Senate.

It’s possible the bill will be revived in a special legislative session. While we support the purposes of this bill, we believe the best solution is for Congress to just get rid of the TSA altogether.

That’s why I sent the following letter to my Representative and Senators. We encourage you to send a letter as well, and you may borrow from or copy this . . .

I am OUTRAGED that the DoJ threatened to ground flights in Texas if it passed a law simply requiring probable cause for TSA agents (or other government personnel) to touch people’s private parts as part of a search.

Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the power to declare any state a virtual “no-fly” zone? Do we live in a dictatorship?

Reports come in every day of children, young women, the elderly, and disabled persons being “handled” by TSA agents, inappropriately and for no reason. States have EVERY RIGHT to protect their citizens from sexual assault.

But the TSA’s groping of private parts is only part of the problem. The “naked body scanners” and pat-downs of travelers are themselves unreasonable searches and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment. If there is no cause to suspect that someone will do harm, there is no cause to search him or her!

Furthermore, these searches are an enormous waste of time and resources. The TSA’s procedures are “security theater,” in which it PRETENDS to be “doing something” to keep us safe, without actually making us safer.

Is there an alternative? Yes!

I would feel MUCH safer if airlines provided their own security with NO federal control or regulation. Airlines have every incentive to prevent hijackings and bombings.

* Insurance companies would essentially regulate airlines, insisting that safety concerns be addressed. Premiums would regulate behavior.
* Airlines would compete with each other to provide a safe, hassle-free, and enjoyable flight experience for the customer.

This is common sense, isn’t it?

But if the TSA fails, even once, my best guess is that there will be calls to double their budget, and make the pre-flight experience even more miserable.

The federal government needs to cut costs, and the TSA serves no useful purpose. Please abolish this agency.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

And we invite you to our blog and “Like” and Tweet this Dispatch.

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Paul has pushed for balancing the budget aggressively, stood up for consumer choice, and all the while doing everything in his power to cut government spending. Now, he’s revealing his diamond-tough huevos by going up against the whimsical idiot-savants of hypocrisy in his own party and the truth-bending emotionally-charged demagogues on the other side. His only allegiances are his promises and the U.S. Constitution. If enough of his peers in DC started doing the same our Founding Fathers might stop rolling over and over in their graves to salute the flag once again.

Listen here to Rand Paul discussing recent renewal vote on The PATRIOT Act with everyone’s favorite Neo-Conservative whipping boy, Sean Hannity (from Hannity’s radio show). Near the end Rand Paul reveals who he may vote for in the upcoming POTUS 2012 election and touches on his own potential aspirations for that same office.

Download audio file (randpaul-hannity-05262012.mp3)

“I called the Speaker and Leader today and emailed my representatives.  Thanks for encouraging me to do so.  It feels good, real good.” — Will Ashby, DC Downsizer

“GOP leaders argue that extending the PATRIOT Act is especially important because the killing of Osama bin Laden might inspire retaliatory terrorist attacks against Americans. Call me cynical, but had Bin Laden not yet been killed or captured, I’m sure that these same GOP leaders would argue that extending the PATRIOT Act is especially important because Osama bin Laden remains on the loose.” – Don Boudreaux

Three controversial provisions of the so-called Patriot Act are set to expire on May 27.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, has introduced a bill that would make one of these provisions PERMANENT and would extend the other two for SIX YEARS.

This bill will likely be debated and voted on in the House next week.

We need you to CALL your Representative to encourage him or her to oppose this bill. Start here: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/129

After you’re logged in you will find your Representative’s phone number on our Repeal the Patriot Act page.

You can say something very simple to a Democratic Representative’s staff, like . . .

“I want you to oppose the FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act. Instead, I want you to REPEAL the Patriot Act. Democrats are supposed to be the party that protects privacy and civil liberties. Please do so. If we change our principles then the terrorists win.”

Or you can tell a Republican Representative’s office . . .

“I want you to oppose the FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act. Instead, I want you to REPEAL the Patriot Act. Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited, Constitutional government, but the Patriot Act violates the Constitution. If we change our principles then the terrorists win.”

Please also reaffirm your position by sending a letter, copying your Senators so they know where you stand. You can reach all three, simultaneously, using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System. You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

I just called my Representative to express my opposition to the Patriot Act and Rep. Sensenbrenner’s bill that would make the “lone wolf” provision permanent, and extend the “records” and “roving wiretaps” provisions for six years. I want you to oppose ANY extension of these provisions, and I want you to REPEAL the Patriot Act. Traditional methods of police investigation and intelligence gathering can keep us safe from terrorists. We don’t need a Big Brother Surveillance State.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

And please encourage like-minded friends to take action. “Like” us on Facebook and share this Dispatch!

Thanks for your help!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Here is his appearance on GMA. Note his excellent responses to all of the questions posed to him. Much like his fire in the first GOP debate, it has become obvious to me that this 2012 effort is no longer just an educational effort like 2008 admittedly was. He’s in it to win it this time around. The thing about Ron Paul is that even if he loses in the conventional sense (which right now appears likely) he will win and has already won the hearts and minds of a new generation of leaders. And their sole focus is what the America of the future needs most: liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKRwIm_N0vA

I don’t agree with a lot of what Herman Cain says, but I have to admit he has charisma that will give him a lot of support. Expect the other candidates to start attacking him if his poll numbers go up. I think they will.

Gary Johnson did very well with a few odd moments. If I’m looking at him through social-con or neo-con eyes voting for him would likely be impossible. He did come off as a very honest “make the hard choices” candidate. Sort of like Cain without the charisma.

Pawlenty seems to be channeling John McCain a bit too much and Santorum just comes off as angry. Both seem to be going after the George W. Bush voting block; however small that is these days.

Enjoy the entire debate below.

In The Looming Tower, the Pulitzer-winning history of al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11, author Lawrence Wright lays out how Osama bin Laden’s motivation for the attacks that he planned in the 1990s, and then the September 11 attacks, was to draw the U.S. and the West into a prolonged war—an actual war in Afghanistan, and a broader global war with Islam.

Osama got both. And we gave him a prolonged war in Iraq to boot. By the end of Obama’s first term, we’ll probably top 6,000 dead U.S. troops in those two wars, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. The cost for both wars is also now well over $1 trillion.

We have also fundamentally altered who we are. A partial, off-the-top-of-my-head list of how we’ve changed since September 11 . . .

• We’ve sent terrorist suspects to “black sites” to be detained without trial and tortured.
• We’ve turned terrorist suspects over to other regimes, knowing that they’d be tortured.
• In those cases when our government later learned it got the wrong guy, federal officials not only refused to apologize or compensate him, they went to court to argue he should be barred from using our courts to seek justice, and that the details of his abduction, torture, and detainment should be kept secret.
• We’ve abducted and imprisoned dozens, perhaps hundreds of men in Guantanamo who turned out to have been innocent. Again, the government felt no obligation to do right by them.

Read the rest at Balko’s The Agitator

The Immune reads like a movie that keeps you guessing until the very end. It could easily be a huge blockbuster big screen thriller someday. Of course, that is if those in Hollywood are able to overlook the anti-government and decidedly libertarian message of the story. The great thing about Doc Lucky’s story is that it remains true to the liberty message without being overly preachy. In other words, this is not an Ayn Rand novel. I do love reading Ayn Rand, but this is much more mainstream and accessible. In fact it could be used as a gentle introduction to the libertarian ideology for those just starting down that path.

The book explores privacy, gun rights, civil liberties, foreign policy, government health care, global governance, and more. There’s even an evil character that I can only guess was patterned after Nancy Pelosi.

The story follows physician John Long in the not so-distant future when bio-genetically manufactured organisms that resemble flying “man-o-wars” (called airwars) begin emerging all over the world and killing humans randomly. Long is an ordinary physician who is lucky enough to be immune to the stings of the airwars. This makes him supremely useful to the propaganda machine of an international governing body that uses the airwar crisis as an excuse to continually strip individual freedoms from the world’s citizens. Hmm… doesn’t that sound all-too-familiar? And that’s not all they try to strip away as you’ll find out when you read the book.

This is truly a wonderful first novel for Doc Lucky Meisenheimer. The Immune succeeds on several levels. It is both heavy and light. It works equally as a “beach book” page-turner, and as an intellectual pursuit of individual liberty. Perhaps some of those that utilize it as the former will morph into using it as the latter by the time the last page is read.

If you are going to pursue liberty you might as well have fun doing it. That’s what reading The Immune is all about. I can’t recommend it enough. Add it to your reading list now. You’ll thank me later.

————————————–

The Immune by Doc Lucky Meisenheimer goes on sale May 13th, 2011. To order and find out more, see http://www.theimmune.com/

“I don’t think my friend should be able to kill herself,” pontificated a fellow classmate. “Because then I will be sad and this will affect me negatively.”
For whatever reason, the concept that one can do something to themselves but not others was ungraspable for many of my fellow students. Mill argued that people must have control of their own lives and be free to do whatever they wish with it as long as it does not hinder the rights of others to do whatever it is they wish with their lives. In a society that is becoming increasingly collectivist, it may be surprising to some people that victimless crimes actually exist. They include prostitution, smoking marijuana, not wearing a seat belt among others.

In his address to 2008’s Campaign for Liberty, former New Mexico Governor Gary E. Johnson joked, “When I go out on my motorcycle, I wear protection from head to toe. However, if someone doesn’t want to wear a helmet when riding their motorcycle, that should be their choice. There is a donor shortage in this country.”

The idea behind victimless crimes is simple. You have a right to your life. You have a right to make decisions, and yes even obviously stupid ones, because it is your life and yours alone. The idea that government intervenes on your behalf even with the best of intentions is a tragic and corrupting suggestion and one that should be abandoned. Only when you do something that would hinder the rights of others should the law involve itself.

The most important figure in the libertarian movement is the individual. If collectivists are allowed to control aspects related only to the individual, even in an effort to good on the part of the individual, than libertarianism has no chance at surviving and flourishing. Mr. Mill understood the benefits of individual liberty and warned in his timeless manuscript that if victimless acts are allowed to be crimes, than the individual, for all other factors of liberty, cannot be free.