I’m sure most people have heard about this already but here is a collection of information about what’s going on.

• Ron Paul talks with Tom Abrahams on ABC 13
• Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty
• Campaign for Liberty’s YouTube channel

If you are in anyway a supporter of liberty and freedom, if you are a supporter of Ron Paul or anything he stands for, please signup to become a member of the Campaign for Liberty to be kept up to date on the second phase in the Ron Paul Revolution. We are looking to get 100K before September 2nd. You can read the mission statement, strategy and statement of principles at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/mission/.

There is also a blog [RSS feed] manned Trevor Lyman who helped rally people around the moneybomb concept and Michael Nystrom of Daily Paul.

I think this is a wonderful direction for Paul to take. He has no reason to continue his campaign now that all the votes are in. He can take his money and continue the momentum that his campaign has created which was what worried me the most.

I just got back from the Free State Project’s 2008 Porcfest. It was extremely enjoyable. Rich Goldman did a wonderful job setting things up and I have to also thank Jason Osborne of Sakal/CAI for sponsoring the fest and providing the Fun tent. Free Talk Live broadcast live Thursday, Friday and Saturday. There was a lot of open carrying going on, a lot of Ron Paul signs and a lot of good people having a great time. The vendors included the likes of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party, the Republican Liberty Caucus,  Anarchy in Your Head, and BureauCrash.com. I picked up the Real Rebels t-shirt and bosco got the FREEDOM: My Anti-Government tee.

I strongly suggest anyone who enjoys camping and supports freedom to consider attending next year’s Porcfest. If you can’t wait I also recommend FSP’s Liberty Forum in January. bosco, xyz, etc. feel free to add your opinions of the weekend.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/…

Republicans receive the largest slice of presidential campaign contributions made by military members and their spouses, but leading anti-war candidates are getting a substantial cut, too, according to an independent analysis of political contributions.

From January 2007 through March of this year, service members or civilian employees of the military donated at least $766,000 to presidential candidates, according to data made available April 20 and provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group in Washington.

The analysis included donations of at least $200 made by individuals who listed their employer as one of the four branches of the military - Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps - or the Coast Guard, National Guard, Army Air Force Exchange Service, armed forces or military.

These donors gave the largest amounts to Rep. Ron Paul, the long-shot Republican candidate from Texas who has acknowledged defeat in the nomination process but continues to campaign, and Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrat from Illinois.

During the reporting period, Paul - a former Air Force surgeon who broke with his party to vote against the Iraq war - received the most military contributions, with $201,271.

That’s significantly more than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain from Arizona, who received $132,133 from military donors, according to CRP.

“I think that our fighting men and women want to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders,” said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Rep. Paul’s campaign. “I think they’re sick and tired of being sent overseas on these police actions and getting caught in the middle of these civil wars, and want someone like Ron Paul speaking sense.

“They signed up to defend our country, not police the world,” Benton said, “and I think they’re hungry for leaders who do that.”

Obama, meanwhile, whose opposition to invading Iraq has been a centerpiece of his campaign, has received $178,456 in military contributions, compared to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s $85,000, the analysis shows.

“To see two anti-war candidates getting more money from the people fighting the war or providing support for the war effort was surprising to us,” said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics.

However, the donations cannot be considered representative of military employees’ political preferences as a whole because the analysis does not include donations of less than $200, the point at which campaign finance law requires campaigns to disclose the name of a donor and contribution amount. Thus, individuals who give less than $200 aren’t counted.

“The picture could be completely different if you were able to look at smaller donors,” Ritsch said. “You’re looking at a tiny slice of the military who have enough disposable income to donate to a candidate.”

Overall, military donors still favor Republicans to Democrats, 62 percent to 38 percent, according to CRP. But Ritsch said at the beginning of the war, three-quarters of military donors favored GOP candidates.

And you can bet this won’t get much MSM coverage.

The most recent political book I’ve read is Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture on loan from Blog of Bile’s very own xyz.  It is a collection of short essays in the field of anthropology and sociology.  Each essay attempts to shatter preconceived notions and explain in greater detail human actions which the author has deemed befuddling.  Amongst the topics discussed are cows as sacred animals, pig lovers and haters, primitive warfare, the idea of an aggressive male, extreme consumption and extreme donation, cargo cults, a history of messiahs, the violent origins of Christianity, early witchcraft and witch trials, and the contemporary resurgence of disdain for objectivity.

The book is a relatively easy and quick read, only slowing down at the end where the author feels it necessary to defend himself from the hordes of sandal-wearing druggies that are going to attack him.  The author is selling his theories as to why certain anomalies in culture exist.  Unfortunately due to the imperfect nature of his science the results are quite subjective.  Despite Mr. Harris’ ardent pleas for objectivity at the end of the book I find some of his explanations to be lacking in sufficient evidence to support his claims of causation.

On a positive note, he does an excellent job of introducing the history surrounding these topics.  There is a lot of good information in the book, mostly revolving around things that are not easily disputed such as recorded history.  This book is an excellent catalyst for debate.

Rather than go through each topic, here are some of the highlights that stick in my mind:

• A good analysis of childbirth and war are used to attempt to explain why males are dominant in most of our societies.
• Some interesting history of egalitarianism, reciprocity and “the big man” in primitive societies.
• A decent early history of Christianity, including the movements leading up to it and Paul’s initial reformation of the church following the death of Jesus.
• A scathing essay on the futility of modern movements attempting to change society by changing individual consciousness.  Scathing is an understatement, perhaps scalding, blistering or even face-melting would be more appropriate.  I think this is the essay bile would enjoy most.

Here are some problems I had with the book:

• He starts with a good premise, “I hope to present probable and reasonable solutions, not certainties.”  But by the end of the book he is so wrapped up in defending himself he comes across like an early evangelical minister telling “God’s honest truth”.
• Don’t quote the King James translation of the bible when entering into debate over the origins of Christianity.  Sometimes Mr. Harris addresses the original Aramaic, but at other times he seems to disregard the translation process that led to the quotes he chooses to use.  This part of the book could use bolstering.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On April 14, the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, case no 1:08-cv-639, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit is really directed at Senator John McCain, who has spent more than is permitted already, during the primary season, for candidates who accept primary season matching funds. McCain has said he is not bound by the limit because he never actually took primary season matching funds. But the Democratic complaint points out that he because he was eligible for them, he was able to get on the Delaware and Ohio presidential primary ballots without petitioning (the law exempts presidential primary candidates from petitioning if they are entitled to primary season matching funds).

The Democrats are suing the FEC to force the FEC to act against McCain. However, since the FEC only has two commissioners and four vacancies, it is without a quorum, so the lawsuit asks that the Democratic National Committee be given permission to sue McCain directly, since it is hopeless that the FEC can act. See their complaint here.

I hope they succeed. McCain deserves it.