Philadelphia Ron Paul Rally

Buffalo and I were at the Ron Paul rally on Independence Mall, Philadelphia, today.  The rally started at 1pm, with a musical number (Jordan Page), followed by a few speakers, including former CIA officer and Bin Laden Unit leader Michael Scheuer.

The weather today in Philly was far from ideal, with a thin rain in the beginning of the rally becoming a downpour before 2pm.  The crowd was very animated, with lots of people in the age group of 20s to 30s.  My estimation of the number people attending was of about 500-1000.  The Ron Paul campaign is claiming 4300+ attendees, which is a claim I find very hard to believe.

Congressman Paul talked for about 30 minutes or so, delivering his standard message with the usual confidence.  It was quite motivating, actually.  The man has a type of charisma that comes from believing in what he says and in being able reason his positions in a manner that does not come across as preachy or pretentious.  He didn't try to work the crowd much, other than a quip or two about "Sunny Day" patriots, as the rain poured incessantly.

We took a few snapshots of the crowd and the rain.  The mall being relatively flat and with all the umbrellas it was not possible for us to catch more than a glimpse of Dr. Paul now and then, so we don't have any pictures of the man himself.

Phreedom 2012 Rally

Just a reminder for you Mid-Atlantic folks - Ron Paul will be speaking at the 2012 Philadelphia Phreedom Rally tomorrow afternoon.  The rally starts at 1:00PM and features live music from Jordan Page and Tatiana Moroz, guest speaker Michael Scheuer, and of course, the Good Doctor will be speaking at 2:30PM.


Prior to the rally, please join the Veterans for Ron Paul, Bikers for Ron Paul, Revolution Riders, and Sons of Liberty Riders at 11:00AM at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphiafor the 8th Annual END THE FED Rally.


Jack and I will be traveling up to Philly tomorrow morning for the day's events - we'll be the ones who are completely unrecognizable to you, so be sure to say hello!

Ron Paul: A Socialist's Endorsement

The following is a summative paraphrasing, as seen from my perspective, of several conversations I've recently had with one of my closest friends - a devout Socialist AND a Ron Paul supporter.  

So you just KNOW it's going to be interesting.


People tend to stereotype political views into one of (more or less) two categories:  Big Government and Small Government.  Typically, it's fairly simple to gauge which of those categories a person falls under if you know a priori how that person feels about certain issues:  Big Government supporters tend to like wide-reaching social programs, higher taxes, and a government-mandated equal distribution of wealth, while Small Government supporters are quite the opposite.

So if a man told you that his ideal mode of living was in a socialist commune, it wouldn't be too difficult to determine which category to place him in.  Right?

Wrong.

You see, there are two types of 'socialism'.  There is the first kind, with which we are all familiar:  militaristic, government-mandated Socialism that requires an enormous monstrosity of a government and infringements upon personal liberty the likes of which have seldom been seen on this planet.  Other terms which would correctly describe this form of government include Communist, Maoist, Stalinist, Bolshevik, National Socialist (Nazi), etc.  When people rightly tell you that Socialism is bad, this is what they are referring to.

But there is another kind of socialism which, though it is not my personal flavor of government by a long shot, I cannot in good conscience condemn.  This form of socialism is relatively unknown, due to it's low-key and unimposing nature.  It is known more correctly as anarcho-socialism, mutualism, or that thing Proudhon was talking about.

In small-s socialism, there is no government mandate, no enforcement.  Nor is there any infringement upon personal liberty.  Participants freely elect to form a community in which their resources and talents are shared among those they care about.  They are free to continue in this way indefinitely, and if they change their minds, they leave.  It strikes me more as a familial support structure than a form of government.

If you have ever even skimmed the titles of our posts here, you know that this way of living is not our particular brand of tea.  However, if a group of tight-knit individuals wants to form together in this fashion, it's no skin off of my back.  There's certainly no reason that people can't form such a community, right?

Unless such communities are immediately branded as potential cults, or extremist factions.  Unless they and their members are placed on FBI surveillance indefinitely.  Unless they are dismantled at the first sign of wrongdoing by any member of the group. 

This is why my friend, the socialist, is voting for Ron Paul - because Big Government is the enemy of small-s socialism.  In a truly free society, everyone is assumed to have taken responsibility for their own lives.  They are free to do whatever they want, so long as their actions don't adversely affect the freedom and livelihood of those around them.  Alternative modes of living are not regarded with bureaucratic suspicion and displeasure; they are in fact not regarded at all.  They are simply free from restriction, as is any free and responsible mode of living.


I found this point of view refreshing and fascinating - I had never dreamed of the day when socialists benefited from libertarian policies.  I guess I just wasn't thinking in those terms at all.

If you can think of any other counterintuitive benefits of a libertarian society, leave us a comment below.

A Modified 'Buffet Rule' - And Why I Support It

In a show of shameless and bombastic opportunism, President Obama has lately taken to pushing what is known nationwide as the "Buffet Rule", thus named because Warren Buffet pays more in taxes than does his secretary.  Nobody on either side expects the bill to pass either the House or the Senate.  The bill has widely been regarded as an election-year PR move on Obama's part aimed at casting the Republicans as the "God Bless the Rich, and No One Else" party.  And it's working.

It may surprise you, however, to learn that I myself support the Buffet Rule, or at least my own version of it.  Ignoring all impracticalities and economic impacts of the bill as it is currently written, I wholeheartedly agree that a fair tax law seems like a commendable goal.

Obama, of course, is trying to assure the nation that we can have our cake and eat it too - higher taxes only for the super-rich, while everyone else reaps the "benefits" (see: GSA) of government spending without being burdened by it.

This, of course, is where the President and I differ.

Obama seems to think that he can convince people to like him with this little stunt, and his logic isn't too farfetched.  The fact of the matter is that the middle class is suffering under the weight of a massive tax burden, fueled by ludicrous government spending and unfathomable debt.  There's a reason the Buffet Rule is so popular right now - in the midst of the largest depression since the Great One, bitterness abounds from those who are struggling to survive.  A cunning politician needs only to nudge this bitterness in the right direction in order to serve his own interests.

And who could fault the bitterness?  Rationally, of course, it makes sense to encourage investment from those who have the means to invest; this is the lifeblood of a free market.  But when a person sees those more fortunate than he paying a lower tax rate, while his family struggles to make ends meet, anger and cries of unfairness soon trump rational thinking, and not without cause.

The President has cunningly turned this sentiment into a campaign to make sure wealthy Americans are suffering as much as the middle and lower classes.  I urge everyone to think of the current Buffet Rule as exactly this:  If the middle and lower classes are suffering under today's tax burden, then the wealthy have to suffer as well.

There is a fairly simple alteration that can be made to the Buffet Rule - one which no establishment candidate on either side would ever dream of proposing.  The sentiment is the same; CEOs should not pay less in taxes than their secretaries.  However, rather than increasing the suffering of those more fortunate in today's economy, why has nobody suggested that we ease the suffering of those less fortunate?  If the current tax code is an unfair burden on some, does it make more sense to extend that unfairness to everyone, or to make the code fair for all?

Lower the taxes on the secretaries, rather than raising them on CEOs.  Encourage investment from the top, but extend the amount of spending money available to the middle and bottom.  After all, every product needs a consumer, and subsequently, every consumer needs the funds to buy said product.

If the middle and lower classes are suffering under today's tax burden, then EASE THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES.

Of course, no Democrat OR Republican in their right mind would ever propose such an unprecedented and indeed preposterous action.  Well, one would.  It's just a shame he's so damned unelectable.

Bloomberg Takes Advantage of Trayvon Case to Further Cause of Gun Control

In a disgusting display of opportunism, Mayor Bloomberg took advantage today of the Trayvon Martin case to further his anti-gun agenda:

"The 'stand the ground,' as they're called, laws are opposed by law enforcement and opposed by prosecutors. And there's another issue, which I didn't read very much about. The shooter, this guy Zimmerman, how could he have had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, a loaded gun in the first place? Because long before he shot Trayvon Martin, he was arrested for attacking a police officer and was the subject of a court order to prevent domestic violence. 

"But unfortunately, in Florida, the gun laws are very lax. And unfortunate, law-enforcement officials have never been able to revoke this guy's license to carry a loaded gun in public."

Did you hear that, kids?  The 'stand your ground' laws are bad for you, because your elders and handlers say so!

"The gun lobby is writing our nation's gun laws.  It's a disgrace. They write 'em in Washington. They write 'em in the state capitals. And the result is that our children are being killed, our police officers are being killed, you and I and our families are in danger."

Without knowing any firm facts about the shooting incident (Zimmerman likely being the only living person that knows whatever happened that night) the Mayor decided that "this guy" Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder, that his impunity is a result of laws that allow one to stand his or her ground against aggressors, that the so-called gun lobby's sole purpose is to reduce our safety and kill our children.

Perhaps, in all his anti-gun fluster, Mayor Bloomberg is unable to understand the simple dichotomy of this case: If Mr. Zimmerman was an instigator and threatened or provoked Mr. Martin in any way, nothing in the Florida legislation would prevent him from being convicted for murder.  The Florida 'stand your ground' law does not give someone a free pass for committing murder.  It simply allows one the use of lethal force if threatened with bodily harm, without the need to retreat.

On the other hand, if Mr. Zimmerman was simply walking the streets following someone he deemed suspicious, even if that may have been offensive to some (myself included), we live under the Rule of Law, and we do not have the right to use violence to discourage others' (legal) actions that we dislike.  If Mr. Martin indeed attacked Mr. Zimmerman provoked only by his legal action of observing and following, then Mr. Martin suffered only the lawful consequences of his unlawful actions, in this scenario.  In fact, even in some states that do not have so-called 'stand your ground' laws, the threat of bodily harm, if the victim-to-be has no way to safely retreat, would be reasonable justification for lethal force (I'm sure the prospect of forceful self defense by law-abiding citizens must horrify the Mayor).

The bottom line is that it is unlikely that anyone will ever know for sure what exactly happened that night.  So far we only have Mr. Zimmerman's word.  The mayor is no better informed of the facts as any one of the two readers following this blog.  His vilification of Mr. Zimmerman and his aspersions cast about Mr. Zimmerman's past are no more than ad hominem attacks.  Mayor Bloomberg's quest to disarm citizens and force them to rely on government services for their self-preservation is unsettling enough.  But his willingness to use a young man's death to his own advantage, and co-opt the facts of this issue to benefit his anti-gun propaganda, these actions are downright villainous.

To Serve and Protect

Whatever you do, do not appear agitated if the police knocks on your door:

• We Are the Police, and We Are Here to Help Kill You
• Why Was William Reddie So Agitated?

Not all crimes go unpunished, though:

• 5 ex-cops sentenced in Katrina killings case

Gaming Industry Succumbs to Emperor's Temptations, Turns to Dark Side

PlayStation Orbis and Xbox 720 both restrict “used” games

The following is presumed to exist on some executive bastard's desk at both Sony and Microsoft headquarters.

Dear Gaming Industry,

Pursuant to your request for the most effective method for promoting piracy and alienating your user base, we have itemized the following for your convenience:

1. Treat ALL customers as potential criminals, because they are; 
2. Enforce unfair and unnecessary restrictions on ALL media sold;
3. NEVER, under ANY circumstances, legally permit your customers to own what they purchase from you;
4. When all else fails - and it WILL fail - purchase some lobby lackeys to rebrand censorship as a public service, then make haste to push the result through Congress.

That's about it. We were happy to be of service to you, and please feel free to write back with any further inquiries. We wish you and your business model the best in the upcoming, decade-long spiral into irrelevancy.

Yours Truly,
MPAA and RIAA


PlayStation Orbis and Xbox 720 both restrict “used” games