Great Gary Johnson's Campaign Ad

Gary Johnson's most recent campaign ad, which I happen to think is very good:

I like Johnson.  Between he and Ron Paul I'd still go with Ron Paul, but Johnson has a lot of potential to do a great deal of good for the libertarian cause.  His positions on issues are close to Paul's in a number of areas, although they diverge in some pretty significant matters, such as abortion and taxes.  Incidentally, in those two areas I am more in agreement with Johnson's positions than with Paul's, although I respect Paul's reasons for his stances.  And even in the case of abortion, I think Paul's political approach is reasonable: It's a states rights issue, and let the states decide.  Even though I believe a pregnant woman's right to exert control over her own body trumps the rights of the unborn child in her womb  -- and I don't state this lightly -- I am skeptical that the federal government has the power to regulate abortions one way or another.

The reason I would still prefer Paul over Johnson is that I (and everyone else and their dogs) know where the good doctor stands on most issues.  Paul has been honest and upfront about his principles, and has not strayed away from what he professes to believe.  The same may indeed be the case with Mr. Johnson, but the governor hasn't been around as long as the congressman.  Also, every time he describes himself as a pragmatic libertarian a few red flags go up in my mind.  Does that mean Johnson would put expediency over principle?  I don't really think so, but I dislike the label.  In any case, if Paul isn't on the ballot, Johnson gets my vote.  And that's the way things seem to be going.

For a comparison between Paul and Johnson from a Johnson supporter, see here.

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.

Haters Gonna Hate

I've got a bit of a bone to pick with Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's "Fact" "Checker".

See, as a blogger who's wearing an agenda on my sleeve, it pains me to see other bloggers (yes, Kessler is a blogger, NOT a journalist) who are hiding obvious bias behind a subterfuge of honest journalism.  Here, we at least have the decency to express biased opinions for what they are: biased opinions.

Let's take a comparative look at Kessler's treatment of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, respectively:

In this article, Kessler fact-checks one of Obama's claims made on January 30, 2012 during a Google+ Hangout:  

"There's a huge demand around this country for engineers. . . . Where you’re seeing a lot of specialized demand is in engineering that’s related to the high-tech industries.”
 
To his credit, Kessler gives a reasonably pseudo-accurate report detailing some of the falsehoods and half-truths surrounding this claim:

While the unemployment rate for "architecture and engineering occupations" in 2011 was 5.1%, as compared to the 8.9% national average, Obama failed to mention that "Architecture and engineering unemployment stood at a lowly 1.7 percent in 2006".  That's exactly triple the unemployment in six years, a very drastic change for the worse.

The H1-B Work Visa allows U.S. employers to hire a limited number of temporary foreign workers each year.  In 2005, the cap on such visas was raised to 85,000, with many of these jobs filling the (alleged) talent-gaps in the high-tech industry.  There is also a great amount of effort in the industry to see this cap raised. Economist Jared Bernstein, who has first-hand experience and has seen such lobbying efforts within the Obama Administration, noted: “They want all the engineers they can get at the lowest price . . . They say they can’t find enough talent, but what they really mean is that they can’t find enough people at the rate they want to pay.”  So if the demand is as high as alleged, with young engineers able to sell their talents with ease across the country, why does this seem to describe a buyers' market?

As a (luckily employed) member of the high-tech industry, I myself can attest to the fact that prospects have been bleak for recently graduated engineers since the 2008 recession.  Many of my engineer friends from college are bartending or working construction today.  Obama was wrong when he said this, plain and simple, and Kessler seemed to understand this in the article.

Until the closing paragraphs:

"Demand for engineers remains relatively high compared with most other professions, but it’s not what it was before the recession. We don’t expect Obama to have enough detailed information to know that electrical engineers . . . fared worse than computer-hardware engineers in recent years, but he probably should have known that unemployment has risen for such high-tech fields on the whole.
Job prospects within the semiconductor industry look bleak heading into 2020, and the president should have known that as well."
 
Kessler's verdict?  One Pinocchio (on a four Pinocchio scale).  One Pinocchio represents "Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods."

Okay.

Now, let's take a look at Mr. Kessler's treatment of Ron Paul, specifically his "strange claim about bases and troops overseas".  For those of you keeping score at home, here is the claim, as Paul has said, in so many words, countless times this election cycle:  

“We don't need to pay all this money to keep troops all over the country, 130 countries, 900 bases. But also, just think, bringing all the troops home rather rapidly, they would be spending their money here at home and not in Germany and Japan and South Korea, tremendous boost to the economy.”

Here's what Kessler had to say on the matter:

"First of all, Paul needs to update his rhetoric. He is still using the same numbers now that he used in September, but since then, the United States pulled out of Iraq, closing scores, if not hundreds, of facilities. So one would have to scratch Iraq off the “occupy” list. (A Paul spokesman did not respond to a query.)" 

Hostile overtones aside, if a "fact checker" is going to dispute a specific number, shouldn't he bother to look into the actual number, rather than calling them "scores, if not hundreds, of facilities"?  He goes on to correct Dr. Paul with the official numbers:

"As of Sept. 30, 2010, the DOD list shows a list of 611 military facilities around the world (not counting war zones), though only 20 are listed as “large sites,” which means a replacement value of more than $1.74 billion." 
 
Not counting war zones?  You know, those places where military bases tend to be fairly plentiful?  And let's not exaggerate, my dear fact checker.  The conflict in Iraq has indeed been officially called off, but there is still a U.S. military presence there.  Not to mention the fact that, as a Congressman, Dr. Paul may or may not have knowledge of military bases of a more confidential nature.  Knowledge not immediately available to a blogger from the Washington Post, I mean.

As for the "large sites", if you're going to nit-pick semantics, you might bother to notice that Paul makes no claim as to the size of these 900 military facilities.

"Not only that, but we count 153 countries with U.S. military personnel, actually higher than the 130 cited by Paul.  What’s going on here? The answer is that the list essentially tracks places where the United States has a substantial diplomatic presence. (The United States has diplomatic relations with about 190 countries.) In other words, Paul is counting Marine guards and military attaches as part of a vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe."

Yes, that is exactly what Paul is counting.  He is counting the size and cost of the "vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe" as you put it, to include troops stationed in countries as part of diplomatic attachments.

 So what is Glenn Kessler's verdict?  Three Pinocchios:

 "As evidence of the United States occupying “so many countries” or the “all this money” spent on the military, Paul’s statistics barely pass the laugh test. He has managed to turn small contingents of Marine guards into occupying armies and waste dumps into military bases. A more accurate way to treat this data would be to say that the United States has 20 major bases around the world, not counting the war in Afghanistan, with major concentrations of troops in 11 countries."
 
Barely pass the laugh test?  You would think that Dr. Paul had just insulted his mother. 
 
So why does Obama get a gentle, apologist treatment while Paul is thrown to the wolves?  I couldn't tell you.  But here's another article on Obama's choice to consolidate the Small Business Administration with the Commerce Department, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office and three other agencies.  Two Pinocchios, complete with apologism: 
 
"To some extent, these are issues of symbolism and process. Perhaps the president also has so much on his plate that he should not be expected to keep straight the details of his own reorganization." 
 
And here's another article fact-checking Ron Paul's claims about Medicaid and Medicare.  Again, three Pinocchios.  Why?  Among other reasons,

"We can’t disprove Paul’s assertion that people weren’t “laying in the street with no medical care” before 1965, but the argument seems like a red herring, anyway." 
 
Once more, I would like to insert the following disclaimer:  I am biased.  This is opinion.  I will be voting for Ron Paul in the coming primaries, and (hopefully) will vote for him in the Presidential elections as well.

But it still seems fishy to me, despite my most earnest efforts at objectivity.  Check out the articles for yourself.  Let me know what you think.

State of the Primary, February 2012

Fresh off of Saturday's Nevada caucus (which my esteemed compatriot has already discussed), it's high time to evaluate the remaining candidates, their relative statuses within the Republican Primary to date, and, most poignantly, what lies ahead for their candidacies.

Here's my take, in order of delegates earned to date:

• Mitt Romney (81 Delegates)

Let's face it.  Massachusetts' former governor has all-but secured his position as this year's Republican nominee.  While Newt Gingrich may have dominated South Carolina, and a retrospective recount squeezed him out of first place in Iowa by a few votes, his strong showings in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada have given him a substantial lead and, more importantly, all of the momentum.

It is interesting to note that Romney's core supporters have mostly come from the "Whoever can beat Obama" demographic, which speaks volumes about what is most important to a vast majority of conservative voters in 2012.

•  Newt Gingrich (27 Delegates)

The former Speaker of the House had a sweeping victory in South Carolina, but has been a dwindling second ever since.  With supporters comprised mainly of the "Whoever can beat Obama, but isn't Mitt Romney" demographic, it's hard to see a path to nomination for Newt, though it's certainly far from impossible.  Probably the best debater we've seen in this election cycle, look for Gingrich to continue his well-verbalized but mostly insubstantial monologues at least until March.

• Rick Santorum (16 Delegates) 

 Perhaps the biggest surprise of Iowa, Rick "Santorum" Santorum had hoped to ride that momentum straight through to the Convention.  Unfortunately, after spending all of his time in Iowa (and most of his money) eeking out that victory, the former Pennsylvania Senator has very little to justify his continued presence in this race.  I would expect him to drop out within the week, barring surprise showings in Colorado or Minnesota.

• Ron Paul (6 Delegates) 

 If you've been paying attention, or even if you've just skimmed an article or two, you've probably surmised that we here at TPGTFS have more than a bit of sympathy for the Texas Congressman.  Supporters, yes, but realists all the same.  Having yet to finish first in any Caucus or Primary election, the "Intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party Movement" is not going to be the nominee.

The good doctor, however, may not define this as a defeat.  Let's briefly go over a few statistics so far:

1. Ron Paul has received almost double the amount of campaign contributions from active military personnel than all the candidates combined, including Barack Obama.
2. Ron Paul has absolutely dominated the youth vote in every state so far.
3.  In Nevada, Ron Paul garnered 42% of voters who said that "true conservatism" was the most important factor behind their choice.  Compare this to Gingrich at 30% AND Santorum at 24%, both of whom have billed themselves as the "true conservative" Romney alternative.

 These stats show the necessity of Dr. Paul's presence in the Republican party.  To discount him is to throw away a large chunk of these three demographics, all of whom will be vital to next year's general election against Obama.  It is very likely that Paul is positioning himself as an asset to the eventual nominee, and that the eventual nominee will be hard pressed to ignore him.  (Notice how Paul and Romney rarely go after each other, and indeed have been known to exchange compliments?)

If this is indeed the case, an intelligent Republican presidential candidate would do well to accommodate Paul and his supporters, thus changing the dialog of the election and pushing the Republican Party back toward its libertarian roots.  Especially if this candidate is Mitt Romney, who has virtually no die-hard loyalty within his fan base, Republicans will need the kind of support given to Ron Paul, specifically from the demographics that Paul has dominated.

It would be difficult for Ron Paul to call this a defeat.

Nevada Primary and the State of Small L Libertarianism

By now everyone is aware of the results of the Nevada caucus.  According to Google, with 88.9% of precincts reporting, the results are:

1. Romney (49.6%)
2. Gingrich (21.3%)
3. Paul (18.5%)
4. Santorum (10.3%)

 Now, as a realist Ron Paul supporter I understand the odds against his campaign, and so these numbers surprise me in a positive way.  That's a pretty close third, I think.  The thing is, as it happened in New Hampshire, the Paul campaign had higher expectations for this caucus, so this third place has been seen a bit of a let down.

What does that say of the success of libertarian ideas this election cycle?  Is libertarianism failing to make inroads into mainstream America because Congressman Paul could not amass more votes than Gingrich (and Romney, for that matter) even in freaking Nevada? Or does it imply that libertarianism has become so mainstream that a fairly close third place in Nevada (after a fairly close third in Iowa and a second place in New Hampshire) is just a sign of abject failure?

I think Dr. Paul is achieving something important with his campaign.  I'm not saying anything original here, it's been a talking point everywhere for months now that Dr. Paul's main goal may be simply to obtain enough delegates in the primaries to affect the Republican platform this election, perhaps add a libertarian plank or two.  But it does amaze me how successfully he has been bringing some well-established libertarian ideas (end of the "war" on drugs, sound money, etc.) more to the forefront of political discussion.  At every debate so far Paul has consistently received less time than most other candidates, and I expect this to be still true as we proceed down the primaries calendar, but being part of a smaller field he's still received a great amount of exposure.  The next debate he might be one of three (assuming Santorum drops sometime soon).  It's going to be progressively harder to ignore the good Congressman and his ideas.

Is Ron Paul about to Bow Out...

...and support Gingrich?  His performance in today's Florida debate was intriguing at times.  In two opportunities Paul said that if he could hold Gingrich to his debate positions regarding size of government he'd consider supporting him, but he still "had some work to do changing [Gingrich's] mind on foreign policy" (mildly paraphrased here).

Probably not, it would be hard for Paul to support Gingrich with a straight face, if nothing else for his foreign policy.

The Battle of the Internet

Photo courtesy of Gizmodo; Data provided by Aviation Week / Defense Technology International

A quick glance at Gizmodo's 2012 Map of World Conflicts above shows a surprisingly peaceful world, relatively speaking (light purple symbolizes a 'Stable' region).  There are few surprises in the conflicts themselves - revolution and repression in the Middle East, piracy in Somalia, cartel warfare in Mexico and Columbia, high tensions in Syria, Iran and several African nations.  Europe is 'Calm'. China, Russia, Brazil and the United States are 'Stable'.  In fact, the vast majority of Earth's inhabited land seems to be enjoying an unprecedented measure of peace, if not downright stability.  Don't misunderstand me - I'm as eager as the next gentleman to embrace this state of affairs.  But in a depressed and fragile economic climate, one can't help but to be pleasantly surprised that cooler heads have largely prevailed (so far).

And yet what the map does not show is a highly-publicized and actively engaged conflict which directly effects nearly everyone in the industrialized world:  The Battle of the Internet.

In the past week alone, this battle has been waged on dozens of fronts.  With the SOPA and PIPA bills creeping their way through Congress, (and only Ron Paul publicly denouncing it among this year's Republican candidates), a large number of major web sites decided to "Black Out" on Wednesday, January 18 in protest of the ludicrous provisions of these bills, which would effectively have established internet censorship in the United States.

Despite the MPAA's most prolific whining, these online protests seem to have been largely effective.  Wikipedia has reported 162 million page views, and Google managed to collect over 7 million signatures on its anti-SOPA/PIPA petition.  As a result of these efforts, Many lawmakers have retracted their support for SOPA and PIPA, including several key sponsors of the bills.

The FBI responded today with the takedown of file-sharing website Megaupload, seizing assets which total over $50 million, and sending a clear message:  they don't need these bills to combat piracy with a heavy hand.

Shortly after the takedown, the hacker collective Anonymous had its say on the matter with a large-scale retaliatory DDoS attack on the websites of the Department of Justice, the FBI, the White House, the RIAA, the MPAA, and several major record labels.

And that's just since Yesterday. 

Whatever happens in the coming months may very well determine the future of the free and open internet.  One thing is clear:  the above map will need an update, or at least an appendix.

XKCD, I'm looking at you. 

South Carolina CNN Debate

My personal takeaways from the Republican Primary Debate today:

• Newt can't stop talking with authority about anything, even when what he is saying is barely coherent.
• Romney could have handled this whole tax returns issue a lot better than he has, but even having had two days to practice a proper response to that issue he still ended up like a deer caught in the headlights today.
• Best moment of the debate was when the audience booed the bejesus out of John King (the moderator) when he tried to skip Paul's answer to the question of his position on abortion.  Paul had to remind him for the second time in the debate (the first was during the question about Obamacare) that he, as the only medical doctor, probably had a relevant view on the issue at hand.
• Santorum may have done well for himself with his strategy of non-apologetic social conservatism.
• Some of the candidates seem to think that the Federal Government is the answer to everything.  Surprisingly to me, Romney may just not be in that group.
• Ron Paul knew there would be a closing statement.  Couldn't he have prepared one in advance?

Congressman Paul Does the Honorable Thing