New Hampshire libertarian has DopeWars game rejected by Apple, CandyWars accepted

Posted on January 24th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,…

CANTERBURY NH (Jan. 15, 2009)… Catamount Software announces Prohibition 3: Candy Wars has been approved by Apple for resale on AppStore.

In Prohibition 3: Candy Wars you play a candy dealer in New York City in the summer of 2040 during the height of candy prohibition — a few years earlier, due to an obesity pandemic the United States Congress declared sugar was a highly addictive substance and banned the sale and manufacture of all candy. Your goal is to make as much money as possible in 30 days without getting caught by the FDA or run out of town by the loan shark’s thugs.

aka, sugarcoated DopeWars: CandyWars is a reskinned version of Catamount Software’s remake of the cult classic DopeWars called Prohibition 2: The Dope Wars.

Catamount Software founder Hardy Macia stated, “Apple’s rejection of DopeWars was frustrating because we thought we had a big hit on our hands. We decided to rename it, gave the police and player pixie dust instead of guns. changed ‘Cocaine’ to ‘Sugar Sticks’, ‘Weed’ to ‘Brownies’, ‘Crystal Meth’ to ‘Rock Candy’… It was like adding another level of realism to DopeWars by using street names for drugs, but at the same time highlighting the problems of prohibition no matter what (when) the government tries to prohibit whether it is alcohol (past), drugs (present), or candy (future).”

Macia stated, “We still hope that Apple reconsiders their ban on Prohibition 2: The Dope Wars so we can bring many people’s favorite game to the iPhone, but in the meantime all of us chocolate addicts can enjoy Candy Wars.”

Catamount Software has been creating software for handheld platforms since 1993. Their other applications for the iPhone include CheckPlease, PocketMoney, and MPG.

Socialists afraid to claim to be such, got second fewest presidential votes ever

Posted on November 13th, 2008 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,…

The Socialist Workers National Campaign Committee filed a request with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) October 30 for a renewal of its exemption from requirements to report the names of financial contributors.

The party’s exemption request is part of the fight of workers, farmers, and their organizations to be able to engage in political activity, including election campaigns, free from government, boss, and right-wing spying and harassment.

The request was filed on the party’s behalf by attorneys Michael Krinsky and Lindsey Frank of the internationally renowned law firm Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman.

The FEC has continuously granted six-year exemptions to the SWP’s campaign committees since 1979, most recently in 2003.

In this year’s request to the FEC, 62 incidents of harassment from 2002 until 2008 are documented, including “physical attacks on SWP campaign supporters and offices, threatening mail and telephone calls, job firings and discrimination, and harassment of SWP supporters and campaign efforts by federal and local law enforcement as well as private individuals.”

Among the incidents:

  • The Sept. 11, 2004, firebombing of the SWP campaign offices in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. A brick wrapped in incendiary material was thrown into the display window featuring campaign materials and political books, setting the headquarters on fire and threatening the lives of people living in the apartment upstairs.
  • On May 16, 2007, two FBI agents arrived unannounced at the home of David Arguello, the 2006 SWP candidate for U.S. Congress in San Diego, California, on the pretense that they had information from an anonymous source that he advocated violence against the U.S government. The FBI agents interrogated Arguello about his political views and activities and his interest in unionizing his workplace.
  • In October 2005, Lisa Potash, Socialist Workers candidate for president of the city council in Atlanta, Georgia, was fired from her job at Hormel Meats Corporation after her campaign was widely publicized in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

If their community has news sites called The Militant its not entirely surprising that one of their candidates was approached about advocating violence.

It seems odd to me that anyone would care that there were self described socialists. I’d think “capitalists” are hated moreso right now and you don’t hear of their homes being firebombed. Especially considering the president elect is practically a Fabian.…

In every presidential election starting in 1888, at least one socialist party has participated. The Socialist Labor Party ran a slate of unpledged presidential electors in 1888 in New York state.

If one adds together the presidential vote of all the parties with these words in their party name: “Socialist”, “Communist”, “Socialism” and “Workers”, and calculates the percentage of the vote cast for such parties for president, one finds that the lowest percentage in history was in 2000, when such parties polled less than .02% of the vote. 2008 appears likely to be the second such presidential election. The combined vote in 2008 for the Socialist Workers, Socialist, and Party for Socialism and Liberation presidential candidates appears to be just barely under .02% (specifically, .019%). The worst year for such parties for president was 2000, when it was only .017%. In 2004 the percentage was .021%.

That’s because the major parties adopted the palatable parts of their platform.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
– Norman Thomas

Supreme Court denies We the People Foundation’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Posted on January 10th, 2008 by bile
Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Docket 07-680, 07-681
petition for writ of certiorari: A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.
writ of certiorari: A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.

The Statement of the Claim in the complaint says:

1. This Complaint arises from the failure of the President of the United States and his Attorney General and his Secretary of the Treasury and his Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and the failure of the United States Congress, to properly respond to Plaintiffs’ Petitions for Redress of Grievances against their government, namely: grievances relating to violations of the U.S. Constitution’s war powers, taxing, money, and “privacy” clauses.

2. This complaint also arises from the Executive Branch of the United States government in its retaliation against individual Plaintiffs for: Petitioning the government for a Redress of Grievances, namely grievances relating to violations of the U.S. Constitution’s war powers, taxing, money and “privacy” clauses, and for Peaceably Assembling and Associating with other individuals under the umbrella of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and the We The People Congress.

I heard Bob Schulz speak at the Liberty Forum though not his primary presentation. I’ve been familiar with WTP for some time but their 1990′s style website always gave it a dilapidated feel and I never bother to look into what they were doing. I just found out about the lawsuit at the Liberty Forum and he had said they expected the SCOTUS to issue a judgment on whether to hear their appeal. As I suspected they denied their appeal and left the lower courts ruling intact. As far as I understand they said that you can petition the government for a redress of grievances but they don’t need to respond. I’m not so sure the original intent was to say it’s OK that people can ask the government questions without them answering. Otherwise the right to redress the government would be no different than the right of free speech. When I argue with people about the problems of the government, how they do things through force and it’s difficult to combat what they do, and they respond “we are the government” I have to try to describe how the government may supposedly represent us and is physically made up of our neighbors but we are decentralized. We have lives to live. Jobs to work and kids to feed. Their lives and jobs are expanding government and controlling people. We have an uphill battle. There is that quote which goes something like “One activist is worth a thousand layman.” According to their is 19,514,000 government employees. That’s at local, state and federal levels. Nearly 7% of the population. Even if you account for freedom moles working within the system at a 1:1000 ratio or even 1:100 or even 1:10… we are outnumbered. I hope things like this help show those individuals that the deck is stacked against us. They have the upper hand and we have to work twice as hard to get things done. We screw up and our boss can be fired in a heartbeat. If a politician does something so blatant to upset those he represents he’s probably got the average of over a year till you can kick him out and than you can almost guarantee that the guy who tries to replace him will be almost the same regardless of what they say.

We need more activists who are on our team to help balance out the field. Hopefully the Ron Paul Revolution will help with that.

John Stossel interviews Ron Paul

Posted on December 11th, 2007 by bile
Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,…

So what happens when the champion of freedom and free markets from the U.S. Congress sits down for a chat with his counterpart from the mainstream media? That’s when we learn that freedom is simply too hot for TV, or at least, too hot for ABC.

That’s right, they are only airing this interview on the internet, in pieces. And the justification is a laugh, at best.

Stossel explained, presumably writing with a gun to his head, in the first article posted Dec. 7:

Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That’s in part because he’s raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It’s one reason we’re posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he’s the most Googled presidential candidate.

I’m pretty sure I heard a wink in there somewhere…

I suspect there will be more videos in the coming days. I’ll continue to post about them within reason.

Warran Buffett bitching about taxes again

Posted on November 1st, 2007 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 9 Comments »…

During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.”There wasn’t anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don’t have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do,” he said.

If he really wanted to ‘pay his fair share’ he could not only voluntarily give the government more but he could give gifts to those he felt were paying too much. Perhaps he would like the 70%+ top tax bracket back from WWII? Does he ignore the fact he’s paying taxes on capital gains and dividends vs. the receptionist’s wages? It’s taxed before he gets it at 35%. Then he pays 15% on that. It just floors me… he wants the government to force him to pay more taxes when he can freely give them more and ask others to do the same. It’s like when Bill Maher complained to Bill O’Reilly about the Bush tax cuts. He said effectively the same thing as Buffett is. “The rich aren’t paying their share… I’d gladly pay more.” When O’Reilly showed him the form where you can give more than required Maher just stopped dead in his tracks, looking like a deer in headlights. They aren’t dumb guys and I doubt they are ignorant to the fact they can pay more… so what is it?  What’s their justification for wanting the threat of force to be used to take (more of) the property of their fellow citizens? They have the means and connections to supply many of the services the government does… why don’t they? Why can’t Michael Moore setup his own insurance company if the thinks they are so horrible? Why must all these plans of their be implemented by a proxy at the barrel of a gun?

American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007

Posted on October 21st, 2007 by bile
Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,…

by Rep. Ron Paul

I am introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation to restore the American Constitution and to restore the liberties that have been sadly eroded over the past several years.

This legislation seeks to restore the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers to prevent abuse of Americans by their government. This proposed legislation would repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and re-establish the traditional practice that military commissions may be used to try war crimes in places of active hostility where a rapid trial is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent chaos.

The legislation clarifies that no information shall be admitted as evidence if it is obtained from the defendant through the use of torture or coercion. It codifies the FISA process as the means by which foreign intelligence may be obtained and it gives members of the Senate and the House of Representatives standing in court to challenge presidential signing statements that declares the president’s intent to disregard certain aspects of a law passed in the US Congress. It prohibits kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to foreign countries on the president’s unilateral determination that the suspect is an enemy combatant. It defends the first amendment by clarifying that journalists are not to be prevented from publishing information received from the legislative or executive branch unless such publication would cause immediate, direct, and irreparable harm to the United States .

Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of secret evidence to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence to be a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization.

I invite my colleagues to join my efforts to restore the US Constitution by enacting the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.

This is a great bill… too bad it probably won’t go anywhere. Even The Huffington Post supports it. Write your representatives and ask them to support this bill. In one act we could turn back many of the outrageously unconstitutional and freedom infringing actions taken in the past few years.