Edward Snowden Big Brother NSA Whistleblower, Ron Paul Donor

STOP BIG BROTHER
(turn it upside down
if you don't get it.)
Click for tshirt

Edward Snowden is the NSA Whistleblower. The Guardian provided a video interview from Hong Kong with the former intelligence worker allowing him to explain his motivations. It is well worth watching. The headline of the interview is:

'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

(For those of you on a SLOBS App, the video is an enclosure.)

Also of note is the fact that Mr.Snowden is a Ron Paul Contributor (h/t Buzzfeed) :

Twitter exploded with the #IStandWithEdwardSnowden and #Snowden comments. In the interest of brevity, we leave it to you to to explore all the commentary. Occupy Wall Street is a major supporter of Mr. Snowden, which creates some interesting common ground. The NSA, IRS, DOJ, EPA and other scandals have revealed what this blog has alluded to, we are on the verge of a police state.

Commentary

The tea party supports the Constitutional Rule of Law, but we are apparently beyond that now.  It is time to consider the dangers exposed by curbing our intelligence agencies. We have known for years that the NSA monitors all electronic communication. There is no shock to the recent revelations. Hindering these operations would put us at increased risk as a people. The point is, SO WHAT?

Risk and fear are a part of life and even our super-powered government isn't immune. Consider a recent tweet we received:

@doodooecon @lawlynn33 If gov't wasn't afraid to call out radical Islam and to PROFILE bad guys, #NSA / PRISM wouldn't even be necessary!
— Sheryl (@get2thegulch) June 9, 2013

Free people must live in risk and danger. America use to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." those two descriptors go hand and hand. It IS time to discuss the level of risk each free person must be expected to endure to preserve freedom. 

Personally, I would rather legally carry a loaded handgun than rely on police. From my point of view, not only would my person be more safe and secure, but every citizen around me would be better off, including the police. There are choices a reasonable person should be expected to make. Housing, healthcare, personal protection, protection of property, retirement planning, and end of life planning are a fraction of the responsibilities free people traditionally embrace.  

Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, volcanoes, and asteroids are risks inherent to all life, but planning (or not) for them is a responsibility for critically thinking free people. Terrorism, organized crime, foreign invasion and corrupt government are similarly risks inherent in our world. They are risks which our Constitution balanced with individual freedom. The question is whether Americans remain brave enough to take on the responsibilities of freedom or will fear push us into the false security of the police state. Individually, we cannot defeat terrorism, crime or war but again, SO WHAT? 

Mankind is not on earth to stop people from making wrong or even evil choices. We are here to make choices for ourselves. That is humanity. No government or community or village can make our decisions for us if we are to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The economics of freedom do not allow for that, reward comes with risk.

Your choice is simple, sell our freedom for security like Edward Snowden had done, or realize as quickly as you can that there is no adequate compensation for surrendering humanity. 

Allow me to put it another way. Either work for freedom or accept fate. But beware, fate is decided by whoever has the greatest lust for power.

Back to the Subject at Hand

For putting his own life at risk opposing the most powerful forces on earth, Edward Snowden is a Tienanmen square tank man. I disagree with him regarding China, but his courage or foolishness is admirable. He was smart to go public, but it didn't save...

Who is the Better President for the Zombie Apocalypse: Barack Obama

In honor of the return of AMC's The Walking Dead television series, lets mix presidential politics with the imminent Zombie Apocalypse!

GQ breached the subject in an piece entitled "Which Candidate Would Shane from The Walking Dead Recruit in a Zombie Apocalypse?" By Andrew Richdale.  Jon Bernthal, the actor who plays Shane, cited Barack Obama due to his:

"unbelievably inspirational speeches. Plus, he's an athlete."

Lets start our review there with Barack Obama as the first in this series.

Pros

Barry is an excellent talker and has plenty of thuggery and community organizing under his belt. He is underhanded, deceitful and used to killing which may play well in a zombie infested hell. If you recall the 2008 primary, Obama ran the dirtiest most vicious campaign in recent history against Hillary Clinton. Charges of racism were leveled against Bill Clinton and at one point Hillary was reduced to tears proclaiming "shame on you." In a zombie Apocalypse, Obama would definitely break knees to ensure his own survival.  As a dictator promising zombie protection, Obama has a cold, ruthless appeal.

Cons

On the Obama down side, there would be no wealth to redistribute. Scarcity would be extreme and, as the Jamestown settlers discovered, only individual incentive and ownership can lead to group prosperity.  To restate in Obama's leftist lingo: collective salvation is impossible without other people's resources. Cannibalizing and sacrificing the living, thus the future, would become policy.

How It Would All Play Out:

In a 2012 Barackalypse the first couple days would go well. Desperate masses would join the ranks of Obama followers, inspired by his ruthless yet "articulate" rhetoric and ability to adhere to Rule #1: Cardio. Shortly thereafter, groups of people being used as zombie bait would bring transparency to the cannibalistic hierarchy of his rule. Challengers would conveniently disappear along with the old, sick and injured. The policy of eliminating the undesirables would be given the politically correct name "interception". The implication, of course, being that the zombie chum had sacrificed themselves for the "greater good." Followers would report dissent to #zombiewatch.

In the end, Obama would be thrown to the zombie hordes by an angry mob. At that point he would become the zombie leader, Ozombie. Ozombie would be well suited to lead the mindless rotting hordes who depend upon sucking the life, blood and brains from the living. Unfortunately, the cannibalized human population would  pose another massive resource deficit for Ozombie's horde. Barry just can't catch a break.

The Republican Candidates:

Newt Gingrich (coming soon)

Rick Santorum (coming soon)

Ron Paul  (coming soon)

Mitt Romney  (coming soon)

Ron Paul, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury

It is apparent that the other Republican presidential candidates would consider Rep. Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary.  In this position, Ron Paul would hold influence over the Federal Reserve System and economic policy. To Ron Paul Revolutionaries, would that earn your vote?