mooch·an·dise/ˈmo͞oCHənˌdīz/

Noun:	Campaign merchandise (t-shirts, drink holders, other novelty items) bearing the Obama or Romney logos, or some other form of socialist collectivism, to be bought and sold.
Verb:	Promoting the philosophy of mooching, esp. by the presentation of collectivist election goods for sale in public venues.
Synonyms:	noun.  campaign goods, campaign materials, election schwag verb.  suckering, schmoozing (when used to refer to selling campaign goods) --At the Democratic National Convention, the Obama campaign raises money from official political merchandise [moochandise]: T-shirts, buttons, hats - you name it. Evan Eile, USA TODAY

Stephen King Can Pay My "Fair Share" of Civic Duty. (And by "Civic Duty" I mean Warmongering, Property Theft and Destruction, Prohibition, Mass Murder, Civil Liberties Violation, and Economic Destruction...)

Stephen King claims that because he's rich, he should be taxed more.  So, politically and economically, he's uneducated.  Here's the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
 
King, I bought and read most of your books when I was in 6th grade, and I enjoyed them.  ...But you don't know dick about politics, the Federal Reserve, or the way what's left of "America" really works.  Have some respect for Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Frederick Douglass, and the long tradition of political nonaggression that came before you.  Crack a book, read some Hayek, read some Harry Browne.  Re-read Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government."  The opening paragraph could just as well be about the Mexican DRUG War, as the Mexican War Thoreau was discussing.

When it comes to government, you don't get to decide how your tax dollars are spent.

When it comes to the private sector, you can always "opt out."

You acknowledge that the last 4 administrations have been "anti-business."  Then, you bitch about there not being enough "regulation."  LOL!  Regulation sidesteps that core foundation of American jurisprudence, THE JURY.  We, the jury, to be precise.  We, the randomly-selected (in rare instances when a proper jury is called and seated, without prosecutorial stacking in "voir dire") people, who comprise the 4th branch of government.

So, what does the government do for me, that the private sector cannot?  NOTHING.  I am poor, and I don't want to give one red cent to the government.  It is insulting to you to assume that because you're so dumb you think you're getting a great deal from the government that someone who is less well off can't be better-informed about the value they're getting from their dollar in government services.  If you want to pay more, YOU CAN.

And what will your tax dollar buy?  It will firstly,. buy things you cannot choose NOT to buy.  The government is not Burger King, and you don't get to pick and choose what you want.  My tax dollar will go to put my friends in jail, for victimless crimes. It will go to enforce the drug and gun laws on a horribly racist and classist basis.  It will go for foreign wars of aggression that do nothing to keep me safe, and everything to piss off insane theocrats on the other side of the globe.  It will go to crappy government schools that do a far worse job of educating our young than WIKIpedia does --to the extent that not one person in 1,000 can tell me how the Federal Reserve functions, or how jury trials are supposed to function.  My tax dollars will deny gays equal marriage rights, and will put sex stores out of business.  My tax dollars will harass comic book artists like Mike Diana, and musicians like the Dead Kennedys, in the name of christian theocratic values that directly contradic the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  My tax dollars will be pissed away on pork-barrel projects in every state, all of which are less efficient than any private-sector provision of services that comes with a price tag, and the option of voiding contract for nonproduction.  In short, because government is coercion, and this nation walked away from the idea of "a government by consent" when it passed the Federal Reserve Act into law, government services do not need to be competitive in any way with private sector services.

So what did I miss?  Oh yeah, the FDA claims the right to actively deny me life-saving treatments, so innocent people can die young and in terrible pain while moronic fucks like you complain that you --and everyone else-- are not being forcible deprived of enough of their income.  Watch a youtube video where Stephen Badylak shows that his lab can regrow every human organ, and replace it surgically with adult stem cells, then listen to him talk about how the life-saving procedures are being held up by the FDA, which may or may not give us slaves PERMISSION to save our own lives with his procedures.  ...Since when did a free people need permission to engage in risking their own lives in order to save them?  Since when were manufacturers not allowed --by the First Amendment-- to print "sweetened with stevia" on food products? (1986, when Donald Rumsfeld's "Searle & Associates" successfully lobbied the FDA to destroy natural competitors to Nutrasweet, that's when!  Result: 150,000 type II diabetics per year dead from bad diet and a scientifically incorrect food pyramid taught to them in gradeschool.)  Since when did the FDA get the right to hold up AIDS research and development for years while Big Pharma milked the gay and African communities for their patented "slow death" drugs?  They never had any right to do any of this.

If you pay one dollar extra in taxes, not only will I not commend you for your "civic duty," I'll spit on your good name for being a naive, willing dupe of powerful, sociopathic prohibitionists.

America is a nation where the collective isn't supposed to steal from the individual, nor bar the individualist from following his dreams.  But that's what the U.S. government does.  Then, it tries, in a half-assed manner to undo some small amount of the damage it itself caused, and its lapdog liberal "popular intellectuals" come to its defense like whipped dogs.

Go back to writing books about rabid dogs that just want to be obedient, it seems you know a lot more about that than what it means to hold an American ideology.

And while you're at it, don't bother taking out your checkbook to end the drug war, or the foreign wars, or to pay an insignificant amount of the $16T Federal Debt (not including untenable outstanding liabilities of over $58T).  You're right: that won't solve the problem --just like even taxing 100% of your income wouldn't solve the problem.  The only thing that would solve the problem would be you coming to your senses, and being one more voice of truth, telling the young to drop out of the system, withold their support, and begin building the parallel institutions that will leave the American Police State in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Until then,  ...we ask not your counsel, nor your arms.

Nerf Libertarians - Fairweather Friends of Freedom

In every case where the Libertarian Party (allegedly Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's political preference) fails to achieve ballot access, it was because the state raised the cost of communicating with the general public to a level the LP could not afford. Certain variables increase or decrease this cost associated with ballot access petitioning. (Number of signatures required, time limit for gathering signatures, availability of public places with the high foot traffic necessary to circulate petitions, weather, etc...) One such deleterious variable is the absence of businesses that have high foot traffic, and which simultaneously tolerate free interpersonal communication with their customers. Whole Foods, even where they exist, does not tolerate speech on their property. (I just confirmed this with the manager of the store nearest Birmingham, Alabama. He stated that Whole Foods would not tolerate petitioners' presence in Alabama, where the LP is currently gathering petition signatures, under a tight deadline.) ..Such speech is not even tolerated in Whole Foods' parking lots, or with the normal "common sense" stipulation that such speech be out of the way of the doors, etc. Now, it's true, no business should be forced to allow such communication on their own property: but that Whole Foods does not allow such communication, even as the Libertarian Party is deprived of ballot access (in OK, PA, and elsewhere) and pays scarce campaign resources to ballot access petitioners, is unconscienable. The hippocratic oath is a good philosophical reminder, here: "First, do no harm." If Mackey wants Libertarian candidates to be on the ballot, why does he allow his stores' security to remove the petitioners who place them on the ballot from his storefronts? Secondly, a quote from Gandhi applies: "Be the change you wish to see." Would it really be that difficult for Mackey to convince his coporate board to tolerate speech? I doubt it. Omar Gaye is apparently the guy who refuses to tolerate such speech in the region encompassing Alabama. Is he personally so averse to choices being on the ballot that he's willing to veto John Mackey's insistent urgings to the contrary? I doubt it. In front of "Giant" Food Store in New England (even in states like MD, where the courts have ruled that stores need not tolerate speech), petitioners are allowed. The CEO of Giant Foods respects free speech, and understands that if certain of their customers were not allowed to ask other customers to sign a nominating petition, then there would be absolutely no choice on the ballot in Maryland. In effect, Maryland's system of government would become undemocratic. Undemocratic systems have no incentive to avoid falling towards totalitarianism, (demonstrated by Professor R. J. Rummel's research at the University of Hawaii, which is freely available online). I find it surprising that John Mackey defends the concept of libertarian corporate responsibility (in his Reason Magazine debate with T. J. Rodgers), and then abnegates his responsibility in the one area where he has larger-than-normal influence. He claims that it would be tyrannical of him to suggest that he override his corporate board's decision to disallow speech. (Funny, this excludes the idea that he could exercise influence with them in any other way than "overriding" them. How about just _asking_them_ to allow speech?) In contrast with Whole Foods, CEO T. J. Rodgers (of Cypress Semiconductor) claims that corporations have a duty only to their shareholders --but he believes in the Hayekian concept of free expression so much that he spent a great deal of his personal time infiltrating the board of directors at Dartmouth University, and forcing them to repeal their limitations --in the form of a "free speech zone"-- on public speech on campus. His case was that "all of America is a free speech zone!" Just like John Mackey, the board opposed his position --until he insisted on doing what was right. It's now a lot easier for the LP to get on the ballot in New Hampshire: petitions can be circulated at Dartmouth. Likewise, Libertarian petitioners just finished petitioning for ballot access at Giant Foodstores in Maryland, resulting in ballot access for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. I wish John Mackey felt the same as TJ Rodgers. Or even K-Mart, or Giant Foods, or the few other corporations that either tolerate speech, or allow their managers to "look the other way." The biggest improvement would be for him to adopt Giant Foods' policy of allowing all store managers to decide for themselves whether a certain form of free speech interferes with customer purchases or not, and to err on the side of speech. Giant solidly errs on the side of tolerating free speech --meaning that even when their few totalitarian customers (or perversely-incentivized state employees) complain about the speech, they tolerate it, because they comprehend that a few fascists should not be able to deprive the larger community of a choice at the ballot box. (Even better, Giant does not try to claim that they allow free speech, while bureaucratically obstructing it: they do not require weeks of advance notice, or other undue bureaucratic hurdles and permissions.) Hopefully, one day, John Mackey will come around to that level of respect for free speech. Until then, I'll shop there only grudgingly, when they are the sole supplier of a product I desire. Too bad Cypress Semiconductor doesn't sell healthfood. In the past, John Mackey has responded to my criticisms of his store's policy by claiming that petitioners have a right to be on the sidewalk nearby his stores. (I suppose so they can watch people exiting their cars and entering the store from a distance.) Oddly, this is the same thing that the Bush and Obama administrations both claim when their Departments of Justice further restricted public expression in public venues: you can speak --so long as you're doing so in a location with too few people to hear what you're saying. With friends like these, it's no wonder the Libertarian Party no longer has even a single elected State legislator. They spend all their time jumping through hoops which could easily be made dramatically less costly with John Mackey's help. ...Too bad he can't be bothered. That's all for now. --Jake Witmer PS: There is some discrepancy as to whether Mackey makes the decision, or his regional corporate boards make the decisions. The number given out for Omar Gaye was sent to a voicemail for Mike Howard (678-638-5885), so perhaps that name needs to be substituted for Omar's name above. PPS: Nothing would make me happier than being wrong in my criticism of John Mackey. If his company reverses course on its current opposition to free interpersonal speech, and the circulation of nominating petitions in front of his stores, then I'll be happy to reverse my public criticism of his intellectual position.

R J Harris, Libertarian for President

America The Cowardly, Stupid, and Anti-Libertarian --Allowed This:

Rogan Brings The Truth About Ron Paul

Doug Miller: Alabama Delegate For Ron Paul Sets The Record Straight About The Delegate Nomination Process:

A spreadsheet that breaks down the delegate count, and what it means for Ron Paul's candidacy.

A Great Quote For Libertarians

Being right in the sense of being correct is not sufficient to win. Political technology determines political success. Learn how to organize and how to communicate. Most political technology is philosophically neutral. You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win.

-Morton Blackwell

Ben Swann Explains The Current Republican Delegate Count

The South Carolina Congressional Districts that Ben Swann talked about in the above video:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SC-districts-108.JPG
For each of the above South Carolina congressional districts that Paul won, he gets 2 delegates. It doesn't appear that he won any of them, but if his votes were all concentrated in one or two districts, then he could leave SC with a few delegates. Why wasn't this known in advance? If it was known in advance, then why weren't badass communicators on Paul's team dispersed to South Carolina, weeks ago? (Granted, I understand that a few of them remained in Iowa, and that they did great work there. I also understand that Pennsylvania is a state with tons of delegates, and tons of Ron Paul support to be snapped up, or lost.)

Right now, Ron Paul has 10 (out of a possible 62) delegates who are pledged to vote for him. Romney has between 7 and 21 (I don't know how many Romney got in SC, but they are hard delegates, it's 2 per congressional district he won). Newt has the most "hard (bonehead) delegates" right now, at 11 "hard" and a possibility of 25.

Here's the breakdown:
Iowa (only "soft" unpledged delegates): Paul - 7 soft, Romney/Santorum 18 soft (25 soft total)

New Hampshire (usually has 24 "hard" delegates, this year demoted to 12 for breaking GOP scheduling rules): 7-Romney, 3-Paul, 2-Hunstman(go to establishment, against Paul now that Huntsman is out).

South Carolina (usually has 50 delegates, this year demoted to 25 for breaking GOP scheduling rules. Therefore all the media hooplah about "No GOP president has ever won without winning South Carolina" is nonsense. This is usually the case, because South Carolina is usually TWICE as powerful in terms of delegate count.): 11-Newt(hard), 14-undetermined by this blog, but somebody knows who they go to, since it's based on known SC congressional district results. Paul apparently didn't pick up any delegates here. Too bad. If he'd have had more resources (or they were better allocated) he could have had people on the ground in Abbeville County, and the surrounding counties, and maybe won the 2 delegates from Congressional District 3. Paul got 22% in Abbeville County, the largest percentage of any county in South Carolina.



In any State that does winner-takes-congressional-districts, it would really benefit the Paul camp to allocate a lot of resources to rural congressional districts, and give rousing pro-gun, anti-tax speeches. The gun rights issue attracts single-issue voters, more than any other issue, other than taxation, which is universally applicable. If Paul did this, he could really optimize his race based on delegate count, and stay competitive for a lot longer than he's likely to, right now. (I'm hoping for the best, but realistically, Super Tuesday in 2008 was a flood of zombies from liberal states, where conservatives wrongly thought they were being conservative by voting against individual personal freedoms.)

Based on the following map, it looks like virtually all South Carolina's delegates go to Newt Gingrich, the "Russian Roulette" candidate (you never know when a scandal caused by his egomania and sociopathy will erupt). Since Newt is (by track record) an unelectable sociopath (who pays lip service to free market ideas while self-contradictorily advocating that people get the death sentence for marijuana possession), it's anyone's call how his former delegates get divided up, in Tampa. Maybe they'll all do the sub-optimal but most honorable thing, and committ seppuku, en masse. Or, if there's a benevolent God, perhaps they'll do the optimal thing, and send their votes to Ron Paul, the only republican in the race.

Now, some people might think that my suggestion of voluntary Seppuku for pseudo-republican traitors to the USA is a little harsh, but think about it: Not only are they betraying their country, by voting in favor of social intolerance and financial servitude (and therefore against enlightenment values), they are doing so on the eve of a looming U. S. financial collapse. So, there's a real likelihood we could see the collapse of western civilization, based on their vote. Opposition to enlightenment values is basically serving Al-qaeda, or some other form of theocratic tribalism. Moreover, they are willfully ignoring the historical decay of the Weimar Republic in the pig-headed defiance of the rule of law, jury trials, and a free market.

So, an overview of the delegate situation, as it stands on January 21, 2012:

"Hard delegates" pledged = 37.
Of that 37:
7-9 are for Romney.
3 are for Paul.
11-25 are for Newt.
2 are for Huntsman.

Including the "soft delegates" (the delegates that remain unpledged until the GOP convention in Tampa), we can assume that the breakdown is between Ron Paul (republican principles) and the banking establishment (anti-republican socialist "establishment" principles). Including the soft delegates who have indicated they will vote one way or another (7 Iowa delegates indicated they were voting for Ron Paul), the picture tilts a little in Paul's favor:

7-9(+18 soft establishment) are potentially for Romney (total of 27 right now).
3(+7 soft) are for Paul (total of 10 right now).
11-25(+18 soft establishment) are potentially for Newt (total of 25 right now).
2 are for Huntsman. (These two get added to Romney or Gingrich)

(I believe "hard delegates" can be reassigned at the convention, if their candidate does not win on the first ballot, or does not have a chance of winning on the first ballot. So, these get added to Newt or Romney's "establishment" vote totals, as "establishment" votes, unless Paul is close, in which case they go to him as "power-worship" or "favor-seeking" votes. The latter case is highly unlikely, given the desire for control that the sociopathic banking establishment has.)

So, right now, the establishment is divided against itself, Romney has approximately 27 delegates, Gingrich has approximately 25 and Paul has 10. If you count Gingrich and Romney as "the establishment," then it's 52 establishment (Romney-Gingrich) and 10 freedom (Paul) votes. Not good for individual liberty, but not a death-knell either. If Paul is knocked out of this presidential race, then I'm supporting R. J. Harris for the Libertarian Party nomination.