Candidates who filed for office in Nevada – Las Vegas Review-Journal

Here is a list of all the candidates for federal, state and local office who filed for office by Fridays deadline. (Incumbents are denoted with an asterisk.)

Congressional District 1 (Las Vegas)

Kamau Bakari, Independent American Party

Joyce Bentley, Republican

Josh Elliott, Republican

Eddie MrLasVegas Hamilton, Republican

Citlaly Larios-Elias, Republican

Joseph Maridon, no political party

Allen Rheinhart, Democrat

Robert Van Strawder Jr., Libertarian

Anthony Thomas, Jr., Democrat

Dina Titus, Democrat*

Congressional District 2 (Reno, Northern Nevada)

Patricia Ackerman, Democrat

Mark Amodei, Republican*

Joel Paul Beck, Republican

Ed Cohen, Democrat

Richard Dunn III, no political party

Janine Hansen, Independent American Party

Reynaldo Hernandez, Democrat

Clint Koble, Democrat

Ian Luetkehans, Democrat

Steve Pragmatic Schiffman, Democrat

Rick Shepherd, Democrat

Congressional District 3 (Las Vegas, Henderson)

Ed S. Bridges II, Independent American Party

Steve Brown, Libertarian

Gary Crispin, no political party

Susie Lee, Democrat*

Brian Nadell, Republican

Corwin Cory Newberry, Republican

Mindy Robinson, Republican

Dan Big Dan Rodimer, Republican

Dan Schwartz, Republican

Dennis Sullivan, Democrat

Tiffany Ann Watson, Democrat

Victor R. Willert, Republican

Congressional District 4 (North Las Vegas, Nye, Lincoln, White Pine counties)

Rosalie Bingham, Republican

Leo Blundo, Republican

George Brucato, Democrat

Christopher Kendall Colley, Democrat

Steffanie Gabrielle DAyr, Democrat

Jennifer Eason, Democrat

Jonathan Royce Esteban, Libertarian

Steven Horsford, Democrat*

Gregory Kempton, Democrat

Jim Marchant, Republican

Charles Navarro, Republican

Sam Peters, Republican

Randi Reed, Republican

Barry Rubinson, Independent American Party

Lisa Song Sutton, Republican

Rebecca Wood, Republican

Senate District 1 (North Las Vegas)

Patricia Pat Spearman, Democrat*

Senate District 3 (Las Vegas)

Chris Brooks, Democrat*

Senate District 4 (North Las Vegas, Las Vegas)

Esper M. Hickman, Republican

Dina Neal, Democrat

Senate District 5 (Henderson)

Carrie Buck, Republican

Tim Hagan, Libertarian

Joshua Heers, Republican

Kristee Watson, Democrat

Senate District 6 (Las Vegas)

April Becker, Republican

Nicole Jeanette Cannizzaro, Democrat*

Senate District 7 (Las Vegas)

Richard Carrillo, Democrat

Roberta Lange, Democrat

Ellen Spiegel, Democrat

Senate District 11 (Las Vegas)

Joshua Dowden, Republican

Dallas Harris, Democrat*

Edgar Galindo Miron Galindo, Republican

Senate District 15 (Reno)

Catana L. Barnes, no political party

Heidi Seevers Gansert, Republican*

Wendy Jauregui-Jackins, Democrat

Kristie A. Strejc, Democrat

Senate District 18 (Las Vegas)

Liz Becker, Democrat

Ronald Ron Bilodeau, Democrat

Scott T. Hammond, Republican*

Senate District 19 (Elko, Eureka, White Pine, Nye, Lincoln and rural Clark counties)

Pete Goicoechea, Republican*

Tiffany Seeback, Independent American Party

Assembly District 1 (North Las Vegas)

Daniele Monroe-Moreno, Democrat*

Assembly District 2 (Las Vegas)

Heidi Kasama, Republican

Garrett LeDuff, no political party

Eva Littman, Democrat

Taylor McArthur, Republican

Christian Morehead, Republican

Radhika RPK Kunnel, Democrat

Erik Sexton, Republican

Jennie Sherwood, Democrat

View original post here:

Candidates who filed for office in Nevada - Las Vegas Review-Journal

The conservative movement is a public health hazard – The Week

It is by now beyond any question that President Trump has bungled the response to the novel coronavirus pandemic about as badly as one could possibly imagine. Senegal, a country with a per-capita GDP of about $3,500, is conducting mass tests for the virus and getting results within 4 hours, while the tiny handful of Americans who can even access tests have to wait days or even weeks. On Friday, a single Chinese oligarch announced he was donating to America on the order of 30 times more test kits than there had been tests conducted across the entire United States since the start of the outbreak up to that point.

It has been clear since 1980 that under Republican rule, the federal government decays. But under Trump, it has gotten full-blown administrative gangrene. Compared to what is needed to combat the crisis, Trump has done basically nothing. Meanwhile, he and his allies in conservative media have pushed an avalanche of misinformation that will only accelerate the spread of the disease. This is what the conservative movement has become: a gigantic public health hazard for America and the world.

There are two main ways in which conservatives have dissolved the bones of American government. The first is ideological. For decades, Republicans have been pushing a libertarian economic vision that can be summarized as "Government Bad." By this view, the government is a largely-pointless hindrance to private enterprise, and basically all regulations and social welfare programs should be done away with. (Prisons and the military can stay, of course.)

But there are many, many things, like public health emergencies, in which private businesses simply cannot handle things on their own. Nothing but the federal government can carry out the rapid and extensive actions needed to coordinate a response to a galloping nationwide viral pandemic, and the federal government is by far best able to finance one. As The New Republic's Alex Pareene writes, the right-wing extremists in the Trump administration have reacted with a sort of slack-jawed disbelief at the private sector completely failing to rise to the coronavirus challenge.

Second and more importantly, there is the conservative propaganda machine. The American right-wing media is without question the most unhinged, hysterical, irresponsible, and conspiracy-addled major press complex in the world. The right-wing media in the U.K. and Australia come close (probably because of shared language and ownership), but nobody beats Fox News in their combination of wide reach and utterly shameless propaganda.

On the one hand, Fox News, The Federalist, Rush Limbaugh, and so on are akin to the state media in a communist dictatorship. The movement is never wrong, Republican politicians are always right, and their political enemies are loathsome traitors who hate freedom, puppies, and apple pie. News that reflects badly on Trump is either made up or the product of a dastardly foreign or left-wing conspiracy. Aging white people across the country have turned their brains to pudding watching Sean Hannity yell insane racist nonsense at them night after night.

But on the other, a dominant faction of Republican politicians, including President Trump, are themselves melt-brained propaganda addicts. This is not how dictatorships usually work. In communist China, the top political leadership sets the party line coming out of the agitprop press, rather than the other way around. Leaders are influenced by party ideology, of course, but they still have wide latitude to change course like when the initial line that the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan was in hand turned out to be drastically mistaken, the Chinese Communist Party turned on a dime and started mass quarantines and lockdowns.

Trump, by contrast, has been loyally watching and live-tweeting Fox News while the epidemic spreads like wildfire, and doing almost nothing to stop it. The line coming from that network and the rest of conservative media is largely that the coronavirus is either fake, a foreign bioweapon, or a Democratic Party/mainstream media conspiracy to undermine the GOP. Rush Limbaugh said the virus was just the "common cold" that was being "weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump." Hannity suggested it might be entirely a fraud. (To be fair, Tucker Carlson and Michael Savage have tried to raise the alarm, but they are outliers.)

In another alarming public address Friday, Trump insisted he and his cronies were doing an "incredible job," despite the ongoing failure to test remotely adequately or pass anything to deal with the developing economic crisis. (He did however boast that America has many large companies.)

The remarkable thing about the denial-and-downplay strategy is that conservative Americans, being disproportionately elderly, are also disproportionately at risk from novel coronavirus. Limbaugh himself is 69 years old and has lung cancer. It could be that, given how utterly incompetent Trump is, furious spinning is the only strategy available.

But there is another important part of the story: conservative media is run by horrible monsters who constantly grift their own viewers and listeners. Whipping up foaming hysteria about liberals is a great opportunity to trick elderly retirees out of a piece of their retirement savings, it turns out. Even as the coronavirus scythe blade descends towards thousands of nursing and retirement homes where Fox News is on every minute of the day, these disgusting scum are using it to hawk garbage investment guides and quack snake oil cures.

First, the conservative movement dissolved the brains of its membership, then those people ended up in charge and dissolved the American government. Now that destruction is going to create quite possibly the worst outbreak of coronavirus in the entire world. Perhaps if the conservative movement suffers thousands of casualties among its own ranks it will finally try some introspection. But I would bet they'll just blame Barack Obama instead.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

The rest is here:

The conservative movement is a public health hazard - The Week

The Sanders Campaign: Another Failure of Socialism? – The National Interest

The failures of socialism have been chronicled many places, fromSocialismby Ludwig von Mises in 1922 toSocialism: The Failed Idea That Never Diesby Kristian Niemietz just last year. Perhaps the most contemporary failure, outside the continuing tragedies of North Korea and Cuba, is the sad example of Hugo Chavezs 21st century socialism in Venezuela, which turned out to be all too similar to 20th century socialism.

But right now we may be witnessing yet another failure of socialism: the sudden collapse of the presidential campaign of selfproclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Just two weeks ago there wasfullscaleSanderspanic. Coming off his neardefeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, Sanders seemed to be on aroll, building toward astronger effort in 2020. After the senators success in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, he jumped into the lead in national polls. The moderate Democratic candidates seemed on the ropes. Bernie was dubbed thefrontrunnerfor the Democratic nomination and was leading President Trump ingeneral election polls.

Sanders started to get more attention. Debates over democratic socialism heated up. Sanders went on national television to defend hispraise of Fidel Castro. Democratic party leaders despaired. And then the voters started paying attention. Sanders lost big in South Carolina, as expected. Not so expectedly, he lost 10 of 14 primaries on Super Tuesday. Then just last night his campaign suffered probably fatal blows, especially in Missouri and Michigan. In Missouri, astate where Clinton had barely edged past him in 2016, he lost to Joe Biden by 60 to 35 percent. And in Michigan, where his upset of Clinton in 2016 had propelled his campaign, voters preferred Biden by 53 to 36 percent.

It looks like voters, even Democratic primary voters, arent as enamored of socialism as we had feared. In Michigan he carried voters 18 to 29. But his claims that he could win the presidency by generating ahuge turnout of young voters have not panned out. Youth turnout has been lower throughout the primaries than it was in 2016. Sanders loses AfricanAmerican voters and older voters heavily. He did worse with the white working class than he did in 2016. He lost both collegeeducated whites and noncollege whites.

Weve worried alot about the rise of illiberal populism on both right and left, in the United States and around the world. Ideas we thought were dead protectionism, ethnic nationalism, antiSemitism, and socialism are back. But Im breathing alittle easier today. It seems that theres less enthusiasm for the socialist version of illiberalism than Ifeared.

These results suggest that much of the Sanders 2016 vote was an antiClinton vote. Hillary Clinton had thesecondhighest unfavorable ratingfor any presidential candidate polled by Gallup since 1956, second only to Donald Trump. Perhaps it should have been no surprise that an alternative candidate could come so close to denying her the nomination. But in every state up through Super Tuesday, Sanders got asmaller percentageof the vote in 2020 than he did in 2016, including his home state of Vermont.

To be sure, Joe Biden is nobodys idea of alibertarian oraclassical liberal. In rejecting socialism, Democratic voters arent embracing free markets. Bidenis abiggovernment progressivein the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and both his long record in public office and his current positions include agreat many things for libertarians to oppose. But hes no revolutionary socialist, and for many voters he seems to represent an opportunity to return to normalcy and stability.

Looking forward we may wonder whether Joe Biden will maintain favorability ratings better than those of Clinton. Right now hes well ahead of Trump inpolls about honesty, which was aweak point for Clinton. But the election is still eight months away.

This article by David Boaz first appeared at CATO.

Image:U.S. Democratic presidential candidate SenatorBernieSandersaddresses a news conference in Burlington, Vermont, U.S. March 11, 2020. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Go here to see the original:

The Sanders Campaign: Another Failure of Socialism? - The National Interest

This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns | TheHill – The Hill

Senators are skipping a planned one-week recess to try to finish two legislative items: A surveillance bill and passage of the House coronavirus legislation.

The Senate had been expected to be out of town this week, instead senators are set to return on Monday afternoon. The House is out after a middle-of-the-night vote early Saturday on the coronavirus package negotiated between House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden commits to female VP; CDC says no events of 50+ people for 8 weeks This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Teetering economy sparks talk of second stimulus package MORE (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Teetering economy sparks talk of second stimulus package Fauci says coronavirus response may look like 'overreaction' but could prevent worst-case scenario MORE.

The bill includes provisions that bolster unemployment insurance and guarantee that all Americans can get free diagnostic testing for the coronavirus. It also creates a national paid sick leave program through this year requiring employers with fewer than 500 workers as well as government employers would have to provide two weeks of paid sick leave.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden commits to female VP; CDC says no events of 50+ people for 8 weeks This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns McConnell: Discussions underway on additional coronavirus bills MORE (R-Ky.) predicted that a bipartisan majority of the chamber would want to move swiftly to pass a second coronavirus package, after Congress passed an initial $8.3 billion earlier this month.

Senators will need to carefully review the version just passed by the House. But I believe the vast majority of Senators in both parties will agree we should act swiftly to secure relief for American workers, families, and small businesses, he said in a statement shortly after the House vote.

Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerWatchdog raises concerns over Trump energy regulator Fear factor: Press and politicians should help pause the panic Democratic Senators introduce bill to provide free coronavirus testing MORE (D-N.Y.) quickly urged for the Senate to take up the House bill as passed.

First, Leader McConnell with the crisis we have, as the death today in New York shows, Leader McConnell should never have skipped town should never have let the Senate recess. We should have passed this bill late last night just as the House did. Fortunately, we are coming back Monday and Leader McConnell and our friends on the Republican side should pass the bill as is. It has broad support, got the support of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the House, Schumer said during a press conference in New York.

But the bill is facing several snags that could slow its path to President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Hill's Morning Report - Biden commits to female VP; CDC says no events of 50+ people for 8 weeks This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Juan Williams: Trump must be held to account over coronavirus MOREs desk.

First, the House is expected to have to clear technical changes to the coronavirus package. That is expected to take place this week by unanimous consent.

Secondly, the Senate is currently debating a surveillance bill, which is expected to get an initial procedural vote on Monday night. McConnell would need the consent of every senator to move from that bill to the coronavirus package, or to skip over other procedural hurdles and clear the House-passed coronavirus quickly.

Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Bill to protect children online ensnared in encryption fight Hillicon Valley: Facebook, Twitter dismantle Russian interference campaign targeting African Americans | YouTube to allow ads on coronavirus videos | Trump signs law banning federal funds for Huawei equipment MORE (R-Mo.) urged his colleagues to let the coronavirus package pass on Monday, which would take cooperation from all 100 senators.

FISA needs to be carefully reviewed. That takes time. That can wait. The emergency response to #coronavirus should be the first order of business in the Senate tomorrow. There is no reason for this to take days & days, he tweeted.

But there are already calls from some senators to make changes to the House passed bill, or scrap it altogether.

Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns McConnell: Discussions underway on additional coronavirus bills GOP senator announces intention to subpoena firm tied to Burisma MORE (R-Wis.) signaled his opposition to the House bill over concerns that that the paid sick leave provision would harm small businesses.

I hope the Senate will approach this with a level head and pass a bill that does more good than harm or, if it wont, pass nothing at all. The president and states already have adequate authority and funding to address the current situation, he said in a statement.

Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns McConnell: Discussions underway on additional coronavirus bills Coronavirus spending will come amid huge deficits MORE (R-Fla.) added in a tweet that he was hoping to include additional small business protections into the House-passed bill. Any changes by the Senate would bounce the bill back to the House, which is out of town for the week.

The potential hold ups for the legislation comes as the spread of the coronavirus is upending day-to-day life on Capitol Hill.

A second Capitol Hill staffer, this time in the Rep. David SchweikertDavid SchweikertCarper staffer tests positive in Delaware The Hill's Morning Report - Biden commits to female VP; CDC says no events of 50+ people for 8 weeks This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns MOREs office, was confirmed to have tested positive for the coronavirus. The news sparked another round of congressional office closures, with several lawmakers already announcing that their staffs are working remotely.

This week will also mark the first full work week after new restrictions were placed on access to the Capitol. In addition to the temporary shuttering of tours, access to the Capitol or the congressional office buildings is now limited to members, staff, press and visitors on official business, with a cap on group size.

The extra measures on Capitol Hill comes as Washington, D.C. also placed new restrictions over the weekend and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new guidance including recommending canceling any events with more than 50 people for the next eight weeks.

This recommendation does not apply to the day to day operation of organizations such as schools, institutes of higher learning or businesses, the guidance adds.

Capitol Hill staff have tried to ramp up efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, including encouraging offices to practice social distancing and an uptick in hand sanitizer machines.

But lawmakers are still keeping close quarters with both staff, reporters and each other, underscoring the heightened risk in the Capitol. Of particular concern is the advanced age of many lawmakers.

Sen. Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Coronavirus takes toll on Capitol Hill Senate votes to reverse DeVos student loan rule MORE (D-Ill.) urged the Senate to pass both of its outstanding legislative agenda items by unanimous consent an event that would only require two senatorsone to preside over the chamber and one to make the request.

Given the fact that we can and should pass the Coronavirus package, and any subsequent recommended bipartisan fixes to it, by UC immediately, your decision to call us back to Washington this week is unnecessary and puts many innocent people at risk, the No. 2 Senate Democrat said.

Demanding that those Senators not currently in self quarantine take unnecessary flights exposing themselves and others; requiring our staffs to return to the Capitol and then have all of us return to our families makes no sense in light of the Presidents emergency declaration, he continued.

Surveillance

First on deck for the Senates agenda is Houses legislation to reauthorize a handful of provisions under the USA Freedom Act and make some reforms to the surveillance court.

The Senates debate comes after privacy hawks were able to throw up procedural roadblocks to passing the bill quickly last week, forcing the authorities to lapse on Sunday night.

The bill, which passed the House with bipartisan support last week, extends two USA Freedom Act provisions related to roving wiretaps, allowing law enforcement to follow an individual across devices, and lone wolf terrorists -- people who might be inspired by, but not directly linked to, a terrorist organization.

The bill would end a controversial call records program but reforms and reauthorizes other parts of Section 215, which allows the government to request tangible things relevant to a national security investigation.

But opponents argue it does not go far enough to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, Court.

The court, which has been a target of both progressives and libertarian-minded Republicans for years, has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitzs finding of 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions in the warrant applications related to Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

Sen. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Trump, privacy hawks upend surveillance brawl The Hill's Morning Report Coronavirus tests a partisan Washington MORE (R-Utah) tried to get a 45-day extension of the USA Freedom provisions along with a guarantee of amendment votes on the House-passed bill but Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Trump, privacy hawks upend surveillance brawl Senate standoff means surveillance programs to lapse MORE (R-N.C.) blocked his request.

McConnell warned late last week that if opponents forced a lapse it would only be temporary, predicting the House bill will eventually pass the Senate.

Lee and Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Trump, privacy hawks upend surveillance brawl The Hill's Morning Report Coronavirus tests a partisan Washington MORE (R-Ky.) are trying to get Trump to oppose the House bill and veto it if it reaches his desk in its current form. Trump railed repeatedly against the Obama-era FBI and Justice Department arguing that they spied on his campaign.

Trump has largely stayed tight lipped about the House bill, except acknowledging that some have urged him to veto it.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyThis week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns Sunday shows preview: Lawmakers gear up for another week fighting the coronavirus, seek to curb fallout Trump touts coronavirus response bill: 'Good teamwork' MORE (R-Calif.) told reporters on Friday night that Trump told him he would support the bill. A top strategist for Paul quickly replied to the news on Twitter with thats funny. Thats not what I heard.

See the original post here:

This week: Senate balances surveillance fight with growing coronavirus concerns | TheHill - The Hill

This Obscure Foundation Helped Fund The Alt-Right – New York Magazine

Richard Spencer. Robert Rotellas foundation gave Spencers National Policy Institute $12,500 over three years. Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

At first glance, Robert Rotella appears to be a typical libertarian donor. Through the foundation named in his honor, the Bellevue, Washingtonbased founder of Rotella Capital Management has donated millions to libertarian and conservative organizations like the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, and Turning Point USA. One of his particular favorites is the Institute for Justice. Since 2010, he has donated nearly a quarter of a million dollars to the group, and through it, he has helped set up a Supreme Court battle with dramatic implications for public schools. Justices heard Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue on Wednesday: the Institute for Justice had brought the case against the state of Montana in order to force it to include religious schools in its tax-credit scholarship program. The case has implications not just for the First Amendment but for teachers unions, who view it as yet another attempt to take precious resources away from public schools.

Rotellas financial support for libertarian causes is enough to make him a consequential figure, but theres another reason to know his name: A closer look at the financial records of the Robert P. Rotella Foundation, which he manages alongside his sister, Rosemarie, reveals that he isnt just interested in right-to-work laws or free enterprise. Hes also a significant funder of white nationalism.

Of the $5.8 million the foundation has donated to various causes since 2002, roughly $105,000 has gone to organizations like the National Policy Institute, or NPI, which is led by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer. A comprehensive review of the foundations available 990 reports indicates that its financial support for white nationalism began in 2014 and continued through 2018. Though $105,000 is not an exceptionally large sum of money, white nationalist organizations are small, and it doesnt take much money to keep them afloat. Annual recurring donations are kind of where its at for these guys because they all have financial limits, imposed by federal law, on how large the donations can be, explained David Neiwert, the author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump.

A guy like Spencer, for instance, doesnt need a single sugar daddy to give him money, Neiwert added. Basically, the National Policy Institute is Spencer, and he just needs an annual salary. Five thousand dollars is basically 5 percent of that annual income for him. He just needs another 20 of those donations and hes done for the year. Thats actually not that hard to get, because there are a lot of people out there who are willing to keep that chunk rolling in for him every year.

Rotella was one of those people. His foundation gave $2,500 to NPI in 2014, then doubled the sum in 2015. It handed off another $5,000 chunk to the group in 2016. Donations to other white nationalist groups follow a similar pattern. Between 2013 and 2017, his foundation donated $10,000 every year, or $40,000 total, to the Charles Martel Society, a white nationalist organization that publishes The Occidental Quarterly, a pseudo-academic journal that focuses on race science. Members of the journals advisory board include Virginia Abernethy, a Vanderbilt University professor emerita who describes herself as an ethnic separatist, and Tom Suni, a writer whom the Southern Poverty Law Center calls an intellectual voice for white nationalists and who once complained that the media pathologized White Western peoples into endless atonement. Until 2018, the RPRFs donations composed roughly 13 to 18 percent of the Charles Martel Societys donation income, depending on the year.

Rotellas foundation also funded the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. That group, founded by the late anti-immigration eugenicist John Tanton, has received $17,500 from Rotella since 2015. FAIR calls for sweeping restrictions on legal immigration based on stereotypes about the criminal tendencies of nonwhites; the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated it a hate group. During the same period, Rotella gave another $35,000 to the New Century Foundation, publisher of the digital outlet American Renaissance. The website advocates for white separatism, eugenics, and strict immigration restrictions.

Rick McNeely, a spokesperson for the Rotella family, told New York in December that the Charles Martel Society and the National Policy Institute had misrepresented their work to the foundation. In retrospect, the original goals of why someone would give a donation, in the spirit of diversity and giving other people voices, that certainly wouldnt have been something [the Rotellas] would do if there had been better disclosure. Or if they had a crystal ball, McNeely said.

Unfortunately, none of us can tell the future or hidden agendas or what might happen, he added. However, the goals and characteristics of the Charles Martel Society are not hidden knowledge. The Southern Poverty Law Center helped publicize the societys role as a leading purveyor of academic racism in 2010, years before the Rotella Foundation started funding the group. The society has been around since 2001, meaning it had 13 years to establish its white nationalist raison dtre before it received any Rotella money. FAIR has existed since 1979; NPI, since 2005. Richard Spencer, no stranger to the limelight, had already begun leading NPI by the time it started receiving Rotella money. The intentions of these organizations were clear enough to many.

McNeely said he was unaware that the RPRF had also funded American Renaissance, nor could he explain how the Charles Martel Society and NPI became familiar with a relatively minor foundation in the first place. Public information offers scant additional insight into Rotella or the substance of his views. He has no social-media presence. His official biography on the Rotella Capital Management website says he earned degrees from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Temple University before founding his company in 1995. He eventually relocated from Chicago to Bellevue, where the company is now based. An amateur photographer, he opened the Rotella Gallery in Bellevue, and his biography on its website says he is originally from Niagara Falls, New York.

Despite Rotellas relatively low profile, his donation history offers a rare glimpse into the way the alt-rightis funded. Information about its major donors tends to be scarce. The RPRF is only the second funder of Spencers organization whose identity has become known; the other is multimillionaire William Regnery II, who founded the Charles Martel Society and also helped found NPI.

Rotellas other charitable causes are not so obviously linked to partisan issues. In addition to funding environmental groups like Conservation International and the Pollinator Partnership, the RPRF donated thousands to obscure groups that tout research efforts into UFOs, anti-vaccination, and the apparently fictitious Morgellons disease. The foundation has donated $5,000 to the Exopolitics Institute, which offers a certification program in extraterrestrial affairs, and $25,000 to the Farsight Institute, which claims its team of psychic remote viewers has confirmed that aliens built the Pyramids. But Neiwert says this grouping of interests, while strange, isnt completely unusual. White nationalism runs on conspiracies, he explained.

The psychics of the Farsight Institute probably have little impact on daily affairs, but other Rotella beneficiaries achieve more tangible results. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported in November that before Stephen Miller joined President Trumps speechwriting team, he regularly shared links to American Renaissance stories with Breitbart staffers to influence their coverage. Julie Kirchner, who resigned as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ombudsman in October, had previously led FAIR for nearly a decade. She wasnt the only FAIR employee in the Trump administration, either. John Zadrozny and Ian Smith both worked for FAIR in different capacities before joining the Department of Homeland Security under Trump; both have since left the administration.

The Rotella Foundations giving will soon cease: McNeely said it will dissolve this year. The family lacked the manpower to do it correctly, he explained. But the foundation has already accomplished a great deal during its 18 years in existence including funding a legal case that could lead to a radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court will rule on Espinoza later this year, and, given the conservative makeup of the court, the Rotella-funded Institute for Justice is likely to win. That worries unions like the American Federation of Teachers, which opposes the use of public funds for religious schools. Robert Rotella and his support for far-right causes is exhibit A in the disturbing story of how money has infiltrated and corrupted our political system, Randi Weingarten, the president of AFT, told New York.

As a backer of Richard Spencer, Rotella represents a clear and present danger to the tolerance and diversity underpinning American democracy and its well past time his influence is exposed and interrogated,Weingarten added.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Go here to see the original:

This Obscure Foundation Helped Fund The Alt-Right - New York Magazine

Whitmer nominated to appear on Libertarian line for 27th district special election – WIVB.com – News 4

LAKE VIEW, N.Y. (WIVB) The Libertarian Party has picked Duane Whitmer, an accountant from Lake View, to appear on their line in the special election to fill Chris Collins former seat in Congress. The partys leaders met Sunday night to make their nomination official.

Whitmer, 32, will face Democratic Grand Island Town Supervisor Nate McMurray and Republican State Senator Chris Jacobs.

This campaign isnt just trying to win the seat, Whitmer said. Its also leading an educational reform saying were here. Were fighting. Were the Libertarian Party. This is what were about.

The 27th Congressional District in New York has been without representation since October 1st, the day Collins resigned the seat. It was the same day he pleaded guilty to insider trading charges.

Whitmer says he supports restructuring the nations tax plan to benefit the middle class. Hes also pro 2nd Amendment.

I dont believe D.C. or Albany should be regulating your life, he said.

The special election will take place on April 28th.

Go here to see the original:

Whitmer nominated to appear on Libertarian line for 27th district special election - WIVB.com - News 4

The anti-Greta: A conservative think tank takes on the global phenomenon – msnNOW

Click to expand

UP NEXT

For climate skeptics, its hard to compete with the youthful appeal of global phenomenon Greta Thunberg. But one U.S. think tank hopes its found an answer: the anti-Greta.

Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German who, like Greta, is blond, eloquent and European. But Naomi denounces climate alarmism, calls climate consciousness a despicably anti-human ideology, and has even deployed Gretas now famous How dare you? line to take on the mainstream German media.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Todays most popular stories on The Washington Post

Shes a fantastic voice for free markets and for climate realism, said James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, an influential libertarian think tank in suburban Chicago that has the ear of the Trump administration.

In December, Heartland headlined Naomi at its forum at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where Taylor described her as the star of the show. Last month, Heartland hired Naomi as the young face of its campaign to question the scientific consensus that human activity is causing dangerous global warming.

Naomi Seibt vs. Greta Thunberg: whom should we trust? asked Heartland in a digital video. Later this week, Naomi is set to make her American debut at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, a high-profile annual gathering just outside Washington of right-leaning activists.

If imitation is the highest form of flattery, Heartlands tactics amount to an acknowledgment that Greta has touched a nerve, especially among teens and young adults. Since launching her protest two years ago outside the Swedish parliament at age 15, Greta has sparked youth protests across the globe and in 2019 was named Time magazines Person of the Year, the youngest to ever win the honor.

The teenager has called on the nations of the world to cut their total carbon output by at least half over the next decade, saying that if they dont, then there will be horrible consequences.

I want you to panic, she told attendees at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last year. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.

Naomi, for her part, argues that these predictions of dire consequences are exaggerated. In a video posted on Heartlands website, she gazes into the camera and says, I dont want you to panic. I want you to think.

Graham Brookie directs the Digital Forensic Research Lab, an arm of the nonprofit Atlantic Council that works to identify and expose disinformation. While the campaign is not outright disinformation, Brookie said in an email, it does bear resemblance to a model we use called the 4ds dismiss the message, distort the facts, distract the audience, and express dismay at the whole thing.

Brookie added: The tactic is intended to create an equivalency in spokespeople and message. In this case, it is a false equivalency between a message based in climate science that went viral organically and a message based in climate skepticism trying to catch up using paid promotion.

Naomi said her political activism was sparked a few years ago when she began asking questions in school about Germanys liberal immigration policies. She said the backlash from teachers and other students hardened her skepticism about mainstream German thinking. More recently, she said that watching young people joining weekly Fridays For Future protests inspired by Greta helped spur her opposition to climate change activism.

I get chills when I see those young people, especially at Fridays for Future. They are screaming and shouting and theyre generally terrified, she said in an interview. They dont want the world to end.

Naomi said she does not dispute that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, but she argues that many scientists and activists have overstated their impact.

I dont want to get people to stop believing in man-made climate change, not at all, she said. Are manmade CO2 emissions having that much impact on the climate? I think thats ridiculous to believe.

Naomi argues that other factors, such as solar energy, play a role though the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth has actually declined since the 1970s, according to federal measurements. A slew of peer-reviewed reports, from scientific bodies in the U.S. and elsewhere, have concluded that greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century, producing a range of devastating effects from massive marine die-offs in South America to severe wildfires in Australia and sinking ground in the Arctic.

In addition to climate change, Naomi echoes far-right skepticism about feminism and immigration. The German media have described her as sympathetic to the nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD), the biggest opposition party in parliament, whose leaders have spoken of fighting an invasion of foreigners. Naomi says she is not a member of AfD she describes herself as libertarian but acknowledges speaking at a recent AfD event.

Her path to Heartland began in November with a speech at EIKE, a Munich think tank whose vice president is a prominent AfD politician. By then, Naomi was already active on YouTube, producing videos on topics ranging from migration to feminism to climate change. In the audience was Heartlands Taylor. He said he immediately recognized her potential and approached her about working with Heartland.

Founded in 1984 and funded largely by anonymous donors, Heartland has increasingly focused on climate change over the past decade. Its staff and researchers enjoy ready access to the Trump administration, and one of its senior fellows, William Happer, served as a senior director on the White House National Security Council between September 2018 and 2019.

An emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University, Happer has repeatedly argued that carbon emissions should be viewed as beneficial to society not a pollutant that drives global warming. During his time with the Trump administration, he sought to enlist Heartlands help in promoting his ideas and objected to a U.S. intelligence officials finding that climate impacts could be possibly catastrophic, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

Why would an American think tank want to get involved in German politics? Because it worries that Berlins strong stance on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions could be contagious, according to a recent investigation aired on German television.

For two decades, Germany has been a leader in pressing other nations to curb carbon output and shift to renewable energy. Though it is falling short of its ambitious goals, Germany has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions this year by 40 percent compared to 1990 and by up to 95 percent by mid-century.

In December, during the Madrid climate conference, two undercover staffers from the nonprofit investigative newsroom CORRECTIV approached Taylor and claimed to work for a wealthy donor from the auto industry who wanted to give Heartland a half-million euros. Taylor took the bait, and followed up with a three-page proposal outlining a campaign to push back against German efforts to regulate emissions.

These restrictive environmental programs are largely unnecessary, says the document, a copy of which was obtained by The Post. Worse, other nations including the United States and European Union nations are increasingly being influenced by unwise German policy.

The proposal described Naomi as the star of a Climate Reality Forum organized by Heartland during the Madrid talks. With over 100,000 people viewing her talk on climate realism, the proposal said, Naomi was well-positioned to fight German climate policies.

Funding for our Germany Environmental Issues project will enable Heartland to provide Naomi with the equipment and the sources she needs to present a series of effective videos calling attention to the negative impacts of overreaching environmental regulations, the proposal says.

CORRECTIV aired its report on Heartland earlier this month on German TV. Taylor dismissed the report, saying, Heck, I would have spoken with them if they told us who they were, and the answers would have been pretty much the same.

The report included secretly filmed footage of Naomi, who struck back with her own video response. Invoking Greta, she said, To the media, I have a few last words: How dare you?"

Despite echoes of Gretas style, Naomi has objected to the comparison.

The reason I dont like the term anti-Greta is that it suggests I myself am an indoctrinated puppet, I guess, for the other side, she says in one video. Asked if she meant that as a criticism of Greta, Naomi says: That sounds kind of mean, actually. She added: I dont want to shame her in any way.

Taylor said the tendency to associate Naomi with Greta is kind of natural and benefits Heartlands message.

To the extent that Naomi is pretty much the same, just with a different perspective, yeah, I think that its good that people will look at the two as similar in many ways, he said.

Still, Naomi has a long climb to reach the level of global attention lavished on Greta. While Greta measures her social media following in the millions, Naomi counts slightly under 50,000 YouTube subscribers.

Through her spokespeople, Greta declined to comment.

View original post here:

The anti-Greta: A conservative think tank takes on the global phenomenon - msnNOW

Breaking the Two-Party Paradigm – Fort Worth Weekly

Looking back, Trey Holcomb said hes always been a Libertarian at heart. The 49-year-old public school teacher has largely voted Republican, but the election of Donald Trump led him to part ways with the Grand Old Party a few years ago.

I looked at what the Republican party was saying they were about and what they were actually doing, he said, and it didnt match up. They want to extend compassion to some groups but not to others. If you are going to love thy neighbor unless they are a refugee from another country, that doesnt make sense to me. Why not treat people as individuals. There are great Christian people in the Republican party, but, as a party, thats not what it stands for anymore.

Disillusioned, he went with an open mind to Tarrant Countys Democratic primary in 2016 only to find narrow partisan talking points that Holcomb said felt contrived to garner votes. The real issues that are facing this country ballooning national debt, endless foreign wars, unjust marijuana laws were largely missing from the discourse of both parties.

Partisan politics dumbs down elections into fearmongering over abortion rights and gun control, Holcomb said. Both parties, he added, are guilty of misrepresenting the other side to gain votes. While the idea of joining a political party felt anathema to his new insights, Holcomb saw an opportunity to make a difference as a candidate for Texas 12th Congressional District under the Libertarian ticket.

Libertarianism, Holcomb said, is based on the philosophy of liberty. You own your life. Your decisions should not be made for you.

On March 10 at Billy Bobs Texas, Holcomb will plead his case to Libertarian Party delegates at the partys county convention. If chosen to represent the Libertarian party in the national Congressional race, Holcomb will face the winners of the Republican and Democratic primaries. Incumbent Republican Kay Granger is facing off against TCU grad and staunch conservative Chris Putnam, who, according to the Texas Tribune, has shown fundraising prowess with an early haul of $456,000. The Democratic primary will pit aircraft assembler Danny Anderson against college professor Lisa Welch.

For the first time in recent memory, Granger, who is in her 12th term in the U.S. House of Representatives, appears to be politically vulnerable. Her ambitious pet project, the $1.2 billion (and rising) flood control development north of downtown known as Panther Island, has suffered from ballooning costs, construction delays, and a noticeable absence of promised federal funds (Buddy, Can You Spare a Billion? April 11, 2018).

Everyone who is paying attention [to the Panther Island debacle] is frustrated, Holcomb said. Whether that amounts to change at the polls remains to be seen. Granger has been in Congress since 1996. I have no interest in being a career politician. Politicians who stay in for a generation and enrich themselves are only there for themselves. Thats how Congress operates.

Holcomb is building his campaign on three pillars: addressing the national debt, stopping the United States endless cycles of foreign wars, and reforming marijuana laws that have sent hundreds of thousands of nonviolent young men and women to jail for the offense of smoking a plant.

Future generations of Americans will be forced to pay down the debt that they did not create. Holcomb sees national debt as a moral issue and a growing political crisis. The U.S. governments public debt is now more than $20 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

This country was founded on principal, Holcomb said. Look at the primary source. No taxation without representation. When youre at $5 or $10 trillion, you are now borrowing money from people who have not been born yet. If thats not an example of taxation without representation, I dont know what is.

The killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and the subsequent saber-rattling tweets by Trump have been a reminder of how the United States is seemingly always on the verge of war. Holcomb sees profits as driving that cycle. Banks fund our debt, he said, and our debt floats the military. Around one-sixth of federal spending goes to the military, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Im a 49-year-old school teacher, he said. They have 49-year-old teachers in Tehran, too. Why should we impose our views on their life? I have had kids in my class who went to war. Some were improved, some were maimed, and some didnt return. It changes your perspective.

Teaching has also informed his views on marijuana. When politicians visit Holcombs high school history class, many teenagers ask about the prospects of marijuana law reform.

My first impression was, These kids want to know when they can legally get high, Holcomb said. It turns out that a lot of these kids have relatives who have been caught in possession of a plant. Now, they have legal consequences for an action that didnt hurt anybody. That has to stop. Kids have a good B.S. detector.

Marijuana is legal for medical purposes in 33 states. Its only a matter of time, Holcomb said, before marijuana is rescheduled by the Food and Drug Administration from its current status of Schedule 1, the category reserved for heroin and other controlled substances that are deemed highly dangerous for public use.

Holcomb feels good about his chances of earning his partys nomination and garnering a large number of votes later this year. Most voters, he said, arent diehard Democrats or Republicans. The binary thinking that drives our elections is an illusion that is perpetrated by the entrenched powers who benefit from being reelected.

Holcomb said his campaign will be an awakening for Tarrant County voters who are fed up with politics as usual. Hes betting that voters will respond to a concept that has been the bedrock of American values since 1776.

Theres a marketplace of ideas that will be presented to voters, he said, and I think freedom is pretty popular.

More:

Breaking the Two-Party Paradigm - Fort Worth Weekly

How George Washington Can Revive Fusionism On The Right – The Federalist

Its no secret Americans are divided. Liberals pit themselves against conservatives, often bitterly. There are even factions amongst those camps. Leftists, led by the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are seeking to dominate the more moderate elements of the Democratic Party. The fusion of libertarians and conservatives, absent the unifying threat of communism and the Cold War, is fraying.

In such a fractious environment, perhaps we should turn to our first president, who warned us of the dangers of political parties and in whom a public spirit reigned almost before there was any public to be spirited about. What would he have to say about the libertarian-conservative debate?

Following the Revolutionary War, America was economically weak. So George Washington took measures to ensure financial growth. He championed the Potomac River project to established a network of roads and tributaries that connected separate parts of the country. This would allow citizens to travel and trade with one another, improving the lives of everyday Americans and securing the promise of prosperity to millions yet unborn. This was an end worthy of the attention of Americas father.

Washington also saw prosperity as a means. It can satisfy material needs while creating the conditions for a nation and a people to act justly. Mothers would not be forced to steal for themselves and their children to survive. A wealthy country need not renege on debts to its allies. Prosperity makes that possible.

Yet beyond such advantages, Washington saw prosperity as necessary for the accomplishment of his greatest task: the establishment of an American national character.

The Potomac River project was essential because it would bring the States on the Atlantic in close connexion with those forming to the westward, by a short and easy transportation. Without this, Washington could easily conceive that Americans would have different views, separate interests and other connexions.

At a time many people thought of themselves as citizens of a particular state, rather than a nation, free trade and travel would promote cultural education and unity. It would bring Americans together for those simple and everyday exchanges that combat prejudice and encourage reciprocal goodwill.

Furthermore, Washington was not only establishing commerce but a marketplace of ideas. If individuals could travel for trade, they could also gather to deliberate. Citizens across states lines could converse and come to a consensus. This would ensure that all Americans, regardless of locality, were dedicated to a shared set of principles.

Washington did not promote prosperity so that atomistic individuals could each pursue their own desires. He did it for the sake of unity, so citizens would be willing to make those concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community. He championed improvements in infrastructure for economic growth but also as a mechanism for forming a common culture and commitment to republican ideas.

Put another way, Washingtons views of the interplay between prosperity and American national character mirrors the relationship of the body and the soul. The body is not what is most essential for the human person. A soldier does not lose his character with the loss of his arm.

Still, what happens to the body has the potential to affect the soul. It is difficult for someone suffering from a debilitating disease to maintain his or her spiritedness. Washington promoted prosperity in order to provide for the body politic. But he did so for the sake of the American soul.

So was Washington a libertarian or a conservative? He would certainly agree that economic prosperity is desirable in and of itself. This opinion is shared by libertarians and conservatives alike but is more essential to the libertarian platform.

However, Washington was seeking to establish communities and not mere markets. And he gave supremacy to the former. In Washingtons mind, what elevates prosperity in importance is its usefulness as a means, not just its goodness as an end. He would not have advocated policies that treat economic growth as if it is the only goal without a view to how those policies affect communities and character.

This is an approach we could learn from today. Washingtons nuanced understanding of prosperity could form the basis of a new fusionism between libertarians and conservatives. That alliance is especially tenuous amongst millennials and members of Gen Z whose views of coalition-building are not framed by the urgency of the Cold War. The commonality amongst libertarians and conservatives, millennials and baby boomers, is the American national character Washington bequeathed to all.

Brenda M. Hafera is the director of International and Continuing Education Programs at The Fund for American Studies.

Follow this link:

How George Washington Can Revive Fusionism On The Right - The Federalist

Conservatives are concerned, but is liberal indoctrination really an issue at UNL and UNO? – Omaha World-Herald

LINCOLN Reid Preston gave out red Republican goods this month in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln student union pens, sunglasses, bottle openers.

As treasurer of UNLs College Republicans, the freshman from Lyons, Nebraska, cares about todays political scene. Asked if Democratic professors have badgered him with liberal messages, Preston said they havent.

Even a professor of political science, who might reasonably be expected to share his own views, was pretty much in the middle, Preston said. For the most part, he was really good at not having any biases at all.

Many Republicans nationwide say they have lost faith in colleges and universities and now view them as havens of liberal indoctrination. In a comparatively short period, national surveys show, Republicans generally have shifted from a positive opinion of higher education to one of distrust.

But a 2018 campus culture survey done by the NU system, and World-Herald conversations this month with 19 students at UNL and the University of Nebraska at Omaha, found minimal concern about professorial political proselytizing.

Conservatives nevertheless have reason to be suspicious. Not only do college faculties lean liberal, they tumble leftward. Whether that has any effect on teaching and learning isnt clear, but there isnt good evidence that anyone is being indoctrinated. Most of the 19 students said politics rarely, if ever, comes up in classes.

High-profile incidents of dismissive or contemptuous treatment of conservative students convey the notion that such episodes are commonplace on college campuses.

Outside the same student union 2 years ago, a liberal graduate student-lecturer berated a sophomore who was recruiting for the conservative Turning Point USA. The student captured still photos of the lecturer flipping her off and recorded some of the diatribe on video.

The images swept the nation and gave conservatives a gotcha moment. The incident proved, they said, that conservative students are bullied on college campuses. Some Republican state senators in Nebraska demanded changes at UNL, and the student-lecturer wasnt invited back for the next school year.

Harvey Perlman, former chancellor of UNL and now a law professor there, said that if professors strive to sway Nebraska students toward liberalism, theyre doing a bad job, considering Republican domination of state politics.

If the concern is somehow that left-leaning faculty will twist the minds of their students, it hasnt seemed to work, said Perlman, who switched from Republican to Democrat after the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Most of us are fairly careful when discussing issues that divide people.

David Randall of the conservative-libertarian National Association of Scholars doesnt see it that way. Randall, director of research of the New York-based organization, said liberals, or progressives, have bent higher education toward a social justice mission that aims to liberate groups from oppression.

This results in a teacher thinking its appropriate to rebuke a student for her political perspective, Randall said. In effect, there is a radical monoculture growing in higher education, he said.

Of the 19 students interviewed by The World-Herald, seven said they were Democrats, six said they were Republicans and the rest were independent, libertarian or apolitical.

The Pew Research Center found last year that 59% of Americans who lean Republican responded that colleges have a negative effect on the nation's direction, up from 35% in 2012. Among Democratic leaners, 67% had a positive view the same percentage as in 2012.

Molly Patrick, a UNO junior with a multidisciplinary major, said professors havent imposed their politics on her. Were just worrying about facts and stuff, said Patrick, a libertarian from Fremont. Some Republicans might think theyre liberal notions, but theyre just facts.

Noah Floersch, an independent from Omaha, said he has some conservative views and hasnt been lambasted with liberal political messages from professors. Floersch, a UNL junior, said his family leans to the right.

I dont feel like Ive been forced one way or another, but I definitely think my scope has broadened, said Floersch, a marketing major.

Sixty Andrews, a senior UNO political science major from Omaha, said he doesnt hear professors uttering contempt for Trump. Professors allow us to offer our opinions whether we agree or disagree with any political leader, he said.

Andrews, a Republican, said higher education has a beneficial impact on individuals and society.

I cant get my students to turn in their assignments on time, (so) Im certainly not going to impact their view on who to vote for, said Darren Linvill, an associate professor of communication at Clemson University in South Carolina.

Nationwide surveys indicate many college faculties are overwhelmingly liberal or Democratic. The UCLA Higher Education Research Institute found in its latest survey (2016-17) that 48.3% of faculty members identified themselves as liberal compared with 11.7% who said they were conservative.

Further, that survey of more than 20,000 full-time undergraduate teaching faculty members at 143 colleges indicated the percentage of liberals has grown from 36.8% in 1998-99.

Be the first to know when news happens. Get the latest breaking headlines sent straight to your inbox.

A report published four years ago by Econ Journal Watch found that at 40 universities, many elite schools like Harvard and Stanford, 3,623 professors had registered as Democrats and only 314 as Republicans. That ratio is about 11.5 to 1. The study looked at faculty members in economics, history, journalism, law and psychology.

Conservatives know this and dont like it. The Pew Research Center found last year that 59% of Americans who lean Republican responded that colleges have a negative effect on the nations direction, up from 35% in 2012. Among Democratic leaners, 67% had a positive view the same percentage as in 2012.

A Gallup poll in 2017 found that only 33% of Republicans have a lot of confidence in higher education. Fifty-six percent of Democrats answered that question positively. The Gallup poll found that the biggest reasons for Republican lack of confidence were the belief that they were too political and pushed their own agenda.

UNLs Richard Duncan, a registered Republican and professor of law, said that when there is little diversity in political thought at colleges, theres no reason to have a lot of confidence in them. And UNL could use more such diversity, he said.

That said, Duncan is in his 41st year at UNL and said the institution is a really good place. He said that for the most part, its a university where conservatives and progressives can mingle and find their views respected.

An NU campus climate survey published in 2018 found that 90% of students believed liberals felt free to express their views on campus and 75% believed conservatives had the same freedom.

Robert Reason, an associate dean at Iowa State University, said the presence of liberal indoctrination is just not shown in any of the research.

Reason said that during faculty recruitment, Ive never had a conversation about someones political views. He described himself as a moderate Democrat.

Many say a big reason for the disparity is that liberals select careers in higher education because there are like-minded people in it. They say conservatives are more likely to join the private sector.

Clemsons Linvill said studies have found that students become slightly more liberal while in college, but that a similar change also takes place among young adults who dont go to college. Linvill, who said he is registered as an independent, has studied political bias in higher education and said its largely fallacious.

Linvill said in one report that there has been a growth of conservative groups with a stated mission to expose political bias and abuse in higher education. This has contributed to widespread publicity of episodes where bias was evident, he said.

Julia Schleck, an associate professor of English at UNL, said through an email that the partisan divide over higher education has been deliberately engineered by conservative media.

Schleck, who leans to the left, said negative coverage in those outlets over the past five years has produced the slump in Republicans opinion of higher education.

Randall, at the National Association of Scholars, said conservative students have created groups like Turning Point USA because of the nonstop propaganda thrust at them by liberal professors.

The Harvard student newspaper two years ago said in an editorial that the school needs more diversity of political viewpoints. The editorial said 83.2% of the universitys arts and sciences faculty identified themselves as liberal in the papers survey, compared with 1.5% who said they were conservative.

These statistics do not reflect America, the piece said. And, it said, the statistics probably contribute to declining faith in American colleges.

Rain clouds and a bit of a rainbow roll over the sky in Millard on Aug. 16, 2016.

The sun sets behind a center pivot located north of Red Cloud, Nebraska, on Thursday, July 27, 2006.

Storm clouds hide the sun as it sets over Nebraska's Sand Hills on July 7, 2009, near Thedord, Nebraska.

A summer storm passes north of Rose, Nebraska, on Sunday, June 10, 2007.

A rainbow forms over U.S. Highway 12, just east of Valentine, Nebraska, as storms roll over the area on July 25, 2017.

The sun sets behind an approaching storm as a car heads west on U.S. Highway 34 near Union, Nebraska, on April 24, 2016.

Icicles form on vines in downtown Omaha on Feb. 24, 2017.

Railroad tracks are illuminated by the setting sun on May 3, 2017, east of Scottsbluff, Nebraska.

The sun sets behind Chimney Rock on May 3, 2017.

Members of the Boats, Bikes, Boots & Brews group head to shore as the sun sets after an evening out on Lake Zorinsky on April 22, 2015.

Icicles hang from the horse carriage parking sign in the Old Market on Jan. 15, 2017.

Wheat, ready for the combine, is silhouetted by the setting sun as the wheat harvest on the Lagler farm near Grant, Nebraska, was in full swing on July 7, 2005.

A layer of fog covers the Missouri River near the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge on Feb. 5, 2015.

A setting sun creates a pink haze on a windmill and the Sand Hills southwest of Rushville, Nebraska, on Sept. 22, 2007.

Pigeons scatter at sunset as the St. John's steeple is silhouetted against the Woodmen tower in downtown Omaha on Oct. 3, 2014.

The sun bursts behind the clouds over the North Platte River east of Bridgeport, Nebraska, on July 26, 2006.

Steve Jobman, a farmer south of Minatare, Nebraska, cuts alfalfa after sunset on June 2, 2004.

Wheat waves in the wind in a field west of Dalton, Nebraska, on July 18, 2001.

The moon rises over the northern cross of the St. Cecilia Cathedral in Omaha on Feb. 10, 2017. On this night, there was a full moon, a lunar eclipse and comet 45P passed by the earth.

As the wind speed picks up, a woman holds onto her hood while crossing 16th Street along Dodge Street in Omaha on Feb. 24, 2017.

From left: Melody Borcherding, Kseniya Burgoon and Michael Beltz scoop out a vehicle on Jan. 23, 2018, in Norfolk.

Jeff Bachman harvests soybeans and prepares to transfer them as the sun sets on a field near Ayr, Nebraska, on Oct. 19, 2008.

As the sun sets, sandhill cranes arrive to roost in the Platte River at the Rowe Sanctuary & Iain Nicholson Audubon Center south of Gibbon, Nebraska, on March 12, 2008.

A pair of sandhill cranes pass in front of the moon shortly after sunrise at the Iain Nicolson Audubon Center at Rowe Sanctuary near Gibbon, Nebraska, on March 13, 2012. Sandhill cranes, which mate for life, can live between 20 and 40 years.

A windmill is dwarfed by storm clouds near Crawford, Nebraska, on May 3, 2017.

An early November storm system rolls through the Great Plains, but Omaha only receives rain, which collected on freshly-fallen leaves on Nov. 11, 2015.

Cattle head up to a well to get a drink at the end of the day near Sparks, Nebraska, on Aug. 21, 2015. Smoke from the wildfires in the western states created a haze.

The moon rises above the corn as farmers harvest the last of their fields in eastern Nebraska and western Iowa on Nov. 5, 2014.

Two riders help round up part of the 750 head of cattle branded at the Lute Family Ranch, located south of Hyannis, Nebraska, on May 12, 2005. Mick Knott, who runs the ranch, owns about half the cattle, and the Lute Foundation owns the rest. The work started about dawn and finished about noon.

The rising sun illuminates a tree and a windmill in a snow-covered field located on U.S. Highway 20 between Rushville and Chadron, Nebraska, on March 1, 2017.

The College Home Run Derby was held at TD Ameritrade Park and was highlighted by The World-Herald's annual Independence Day fireworks display on July 2, 2015.

Fog rises from the Missouri River and covers the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge on Jan. 5, 2010.

The weekend's perfect weather colored the clouds at sunset south of Wymore, Nebraska, on Oct. 23, 2004.

Deer chill out at Chalco Hills Recreation Area on Feb. 22, 2018.

A leaf is covered in a dusting of snow near 138th and Hickory Streets on Dec. 18, 2014, in Millard.

A runner emerges from the edge of the rising sun on Sept. 11, 2015, at Zorinsky Lake Park and Recreation Area in Omaha.

Nearly 45 minutes after sunset, an orange and blue glow is seen setting behind the Omaha skyline flanked between trees in Council Bluffs on Jan. 11, 2018.

Rain drops collect on a flower following early showers on May 10, 2017, in Millard.

The promise of rain is fleeting for the seven windmills on the Watson Ranch north of Scottsbluff, Nebraska, on U.S. 71 on May 16, 2004.

A crescent moon sets behind the UNO bell tower on Nov. 6, 2013.

Ralph Remmert is depicted in the mural "Fertile Ground" near 13th and Mike Fahey Streets in north downtown Omaha on June 19, 2017.

Ralph Kohler, 94, keeps his eyes to the sky for ducks and geese as the sun rises over his hunting pond east of Tekamah, Nebraska, on Nov. 30, 2011. Kohler has been a professional guide for most of his life, and he is preparing for the spring season.

The sun rises over St. Paul Lutheran Church, located three miles north of Republican City, Nebraska, in March of 2004.

Geese are silhouetted in the color and clouds as the sun sets at Zorinsky Lake on Feb. 21, 2016.

The sun rises on Chimney Rock on Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014, near McGrew, Nebraska.

Cranes walk through the shallow water of the Platte River shortly before sunset near The Crane Trust, which is close to Wood River, Nebraska, on March 13, 2012. The river provides cranes with a safe place from predators for rest at night.

A bespangled vest awaits a rider during Nebraska's Big Rodeo on July 25, 2013, in Burwell, Nebraska.

Horses stand in the snow on Feb. 22, 2018.

Residents of the Nebraska Panhandle enjoyed unseasonably mild temperatures and cloud cover on Aug. 12, 2004.

Members of the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association hold their hats as 2013 Miss Burwell Rodeo Olivia Hunsperger passes by during the opening ceremonies on July 27, 2013, in Burwell, Nebraska. "This may be a small town, but it's got a big rodeo, and it's got a really big heart," Hunsperger said.

A break in the clouds highlights downtown Omaha as seen from Lewis Central High School in Council Bluffs, as severe storms passed through the Omaha Metro area on June 5, 2014.

John Wanief waits for the bus in a shelter at 120th Street and West Center Road as cold rain pours down in Millard on Nov. 11, 2015.

Flocks of waterfowl fill the sky as the sun rises over Ponca, Nebraska, on March 3, 2018.

A red tail hawk perches on a light stanchion backed by the moon and overlooking the property near the Indian Creek development in Omaha on Feb. 27, 2018.

A woman walks with two dogs in Memorial Park near Dodge Street as many sledders go down the hill in Omaha, Nebraska, on Feb. 2, 2016. MATT MILLER/THE WORLD-HERALD

The sun sets over Sidney, Nebraska, on June 2, 2015.

The rising sun shines on a snow-covered hill located north of Chadron, Nebraska, on March 1, 2017.

Storm clouds are illuminated by the setting sun as people exit a football camp in Lincoln on Friday, June 16, 2017.

Sharon Vencil walks her dogs, Blackie and Whitie, along the Field Club Trail on March 6, 2018, in Omaha.

The morning sun burns off a layer of fog just north of the Chimney Rock.

More:

Conservatives are concerned, but is liberal indoctrination really an issue at UNL and UNO? - Omaha World-Herald

‘Rape of Britain’: Russia Rolls Out the Red Carpet for ‘Tommy Robinson’ – Byline Times

Sarah Hurst on how the far-right activist visited Russia to praise Vladimir Putin and spread Islamophobic and racist propaganda about the UK.

The far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon who calls himself Tommy Robinson has received VIP treatment in Russia, giving a press conference at the headquarters of newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda and speaking at a Libertarian Party conference.

Yaxley-Lennon was greeted at the newspapers offices in Moscow by Alexander Malkevich, formerly the head of a propaganda outlet called USA Really and currently billed as the head of the Foundation for Defending National Values.Malkevich was sanctioned by the US in 2018 for attempted election interference.

The 37-year-old founder of the English Defence League (EDL) and a recent convert to the Conservative Party has served prison time in the UK for various crimes, including assault and mortgage fraud, and last year for contempt of court for broadcasting a Facebook Live video of defendants in a trial, in breach of reporting restrictions. However, Russian media didnt think any of this was worth mentioning, depicting him instead as a victim of censorship and EU oppression.

Yaxley-Lennons visit followed one by Britain First leader Paul Golding last year to the Russian Duma, which resulted in a criminal charge being brought.

Komsomolskaya Pravda, which claims to be the most popular newspaper in Russia, announced that the theme of the press conference would be whats going on with free speech in Europe? It described Yaxley-Lennon as a politician and journalist and noted that, not only had he been jailed for making a video, but he had also been illegally banned from Twitter forsupposed extremist statements, despite having half a million followers.

Yaxley-Lennons own title for his presentation at the event was more direct: The Rape of Britain.

Robinson said that all the problems he was talking about were connected to Muslims, the website RIA-FAN reported. This is not just about one-off crimes by individuals but about gangs of migrants raping underage British girls, it continued, relaying Yaxley-Lennons words uncritically. You cant believe the British media! Robinson ranted. Ive seen their manipulations, how they make up lies about me Thats why Im here! Because all these issues are relevant in Russia.

The website Vechernyaya Moskva interviewed Yaxley-Lennon at the press conference and published an article with the headline British Politician Robinson: Lets Break Up the European Union Together. He told them that he thought the Netherlands and France would be the next countries to leave the EU after the UK, and that Frances exit would be possible if Marine Le Pen got enough support. The French far-right leader met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in March 2017 one month before the presidential election in which she was a candidate. A Russian company is now suing her to recover a loan of $10.8 million.

Peter Jukes and Hardeep Matharu

Yaxley-Lennons views are also remarkably similar to Putins. He said in the interview that EU sanctions on Russia arent motivated by Russias aggression against Ukraine but are an attempt to rein in Russias power. The EU is destabilising Ukraine and intervening militarily there as part of a programme of expansion, Yaxley-Lennon insisted. And if Russia had wanted to take out Sergei Skripal, it would have done it quietly, not with aRussianchemical weapon, he claimed. He said that he hoped Russia would become one of the UKs key partners after Brexit and that they would fight jihadism together.

We can cooperate to preserve our Christian values,culture and identity, Yaxley-Lennon told the newspaper. Russians see Putin as the defender of their country. He is a strong politician. The West doesnt have enough strong men. Western politicians are emasculated. He said that he would like to go for a beer with Putin and would advise him to fight the censorship and propaganda that is being used against Russia. Yaxley-Lennon would also ask Putin to let him host a Russian TV show.

Yaxley-Lennon posted pictures of his lecture at the Libertarian Party conference in St. Petersburg on his Telegram channel, with the words Thank you Russia. The party itself also tweeted pictures of himspeaking to a packed hall. He was an odd choice of guest for a party, the leader of which Mikhail Svetov was one of the organisers of anti-Putin protests in Moscow last summer. But, if people on the fringes are likely to get together somewhere, it will be in Russia.

This article is part of a series on Kremlin links to prominent people in Europe that issupportedby a grant from JournalismFund.EU.

View post:

'Rape of Britain': Russia Rolls Out the Red Carpet for 'Tommy Robinson' - Byline Times

Voter Registration Is Up as Island Prepares for Presidential Primary – The Vineyard Gazette – Martha’s Vineyard News

Early voting for the presidential primary election begins on Monday and town clerks around the Island report an increase in voter registration ahead of the closely watched race.

This will be the first time in Massachusetts voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots early and town clerks are hoping it will boost election participation. The Massachusetts primary is March 3, part of Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states hold their presidential primary elections.

The goal is to try to get as many people as possible out to vote by making it easier for them, said Edgartown town clerk Karen Medeiros. We are hopeful, but it probably wont make a big difference in voter turnout.

The early voting for the presidential primary begins Feb. 24 and continues through Feb. 28 at sites around the Island. There are 15 Democratic candidates, four Republican, 10 Libertarian and four Green-Rainbow on the ballot.

There are 15,194 voters registered on the Island for the primary election, according to town clerks, a 5.6 percent increase from the 14,382 registered voters in the 2016 presidential primary election.

Oak Bluffs town clerk, Laura Johnston. Mark Alan Lovewell

Voter turnout at elections is typically very healthy on the Island; that hasnt changed in many years, said Chilmark town clerk Jennifer Christy. The trend has stayed steady.

The town of Oak Bluffs has the most registered voters at 3,914, standing just above Edgartown which has 3,822. In Tisbury there are 3,497 registered voters and in West Tisbury there are 2,601. Chilmark and Aquinnah have 979 and 381 registered voters, respectively.

Those registered as unenrolled make up the majority of voters for the primary election this year, at 52 per cent. The trend is consistent in each town, with 8,014 total voters registered as unenrolled, 5,766 registered as Democrats and 1,305 registered as Republicans.

Libertarian, Green-Rainbow and other smaller party designations make up the rest of registered voters at just over one per cent.

The deadline to register to vote in the primary election was Feb. 12, and voters can no longer change their party affiliations. However, unenrolled voters will be able to vote for candidates of either party without permanently changing their affiliation. After choosing a party designation to cast a ballot in the primary, voters will return to their designation as an unenrolled voter.

Its just for a moment in time that they have to go one way or another, said West Tisbury town clerk Tara Whiting-Wells. They just want the freedom to choose . . . Im not sure why the numbers are historically more than any other party [on the Island].

Ms. Christy said that the trend of voters registering as unenrolled has been on the rise over the last decade.

Im sure it can be chalked up to quite a lot of factors, she said. Its sort of an Island-wide situation.

Earlier this year the League of Women Voters launched a campaign to register every eligible person on the Island to vote, in honor of the centennial of the historic suffrage movement that granted women the right to vote.

Every election and primary is extremely important, said member Beatrice Phear. We need voters to pay attention.

To kick off early voting on Monday, the towns of Edgartown, Oak Bluffs and West Tisbury are unveiling new voting machines to their residents.

The new machines are slightly slower, they have to think a little more than the old machines, said Ms. Whiting-Wells. Some are excited by it and other are terrified. But I think I can speak to the three town clerks when I say, we all like it . . . it has better security and more reliable technology.

Chilmark and Aquinnah will be sticking to their historic, wooden ballot boxes that require a team of longstanding volunteers to count the votes by hand.

We stick with it because, simply, it still works fine, Ms. Christy said. People seem to like that way of slipping their ballot into the box.

Town clerks said that absentee ballots are already beginning to trickle in, with as many as 98 requests in West Tisbury thus far. Voters can cast an absentee ballot until noon the day before the election.

Each election cycle is exciting, Ms. Whiting-Wells said. Ill be interested to see how this one pans out.

Early voting:

Aquinnah Town Hall, 65 State Road, Aquinnah Monday, Feb. 24, noon to 4 p.m.; Tuesday, Feb. 25, noon to 4 p.m.; closed Wednesday; Thursday, Feb. 27, noon to 4 p.m.; Friday Feb. 28, noon to 3 p.m.

Chilmark Town Hall, 401 Middle Road, Chilmark Monday, Feb. 24 through Friday, Feb. 28, 8 a.m. to noon.

Edgartown Town Hall, 70 Main street, Edgartown Monday, Feb. 24 through Friday, Feb. 28, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Oak Bluffs Town Clerks Office, Town Hall, 56 School street, Oak Bluffs Monday, Feb. 24 through Friday, Feb. 28, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Tisbury Emergency Services Facility, 215 Spring street, Tisbury Monday, Feb. 24 through Friday, Feb. 28, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

West Tisbury Town Hall, 1059 State Road, West Tisbury Monday, Feb. 24 through Friday, Feb. 28, 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Read more:

Voter Registration Is Up as Island Prepares for Presidential Primary - The Vineyard Gazette - Martha's Vineyard News

Bbb-but, Gorsuch? – Above the Law

Justice Neil Gorsuch

Criticizing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch can generate some interesting rebukes from, of all places, libertarian Twitter. In some ways, I can understand the libertarian fanfare for Gorsuch. After all, I myself have praised the man for authoring some astoundingly refreshing opinions. The reason so many libertarians support Gorsuch is because, in the past, he has heavily criticized the discretional power given to the [u]nbridled [b]ureaucrats that run our countrys vast administrative state due to the Auer and Chevron doctrines. Before we get into how shockingly fast Gorsuch squashed all hope he would meaningfully challenge the discretion given to the administrative state, we should get into some necessary background regarding the Auer and Chevron doctrines.

The Auer doctrine is named after the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, which established judicial deference to executive agency interpretation when gaps between federal law and agency regulation exist. Similar to Auer, the Chevron doctrine grants deference to an executive agencys reasonable interpretation of a federal statute. Taken together, both doctrines establish a great deal of flexibility for executive agencies without judicial review, and as I hope you can imagine, these doctrines are heavily criticized by libertarian voices. So, it was to many libertarians joy when Gorsuch made his desire to overrule Auer abundantly clear. Moreover, as Reasons Jacob Sullum has pointed out, this position has made Gorsuch a perceived threat to progressive economic, environmental, anti-discrimination, and public safety regulations. Given his further opposition to Chevron, Gorsuchs ascension to the Court was portrayed at the time as a possible monumental shift to how our government is shaped.

To be clear, as I point out above, in some cases, Gorsuch has acted in accordance with these expectations. He unambiguously argued for overturning Auer, for example. In more recent cases however, he has bristled at the very idea of judicial review over unelected, unbridled bureaucrats. In fact, Gorsuch has recently argued that commissioners of executive agencies should be given carte blanche authority that is never subject to judicial review.

The case where Gorsuch found himself on the side of deference to the unelected bureaucrat was the recent one involving the citizenship question on the national census. As discussed by Elie Mystal here at Above the Law at the time, in the census case the evidence unambiguously demonstrated not only that the head of the executive agency (Wilbur Ross), lied about why a particular regulation was being implemented, the lie was on behalf of an expressly racist reason. Despite this abundantly clear evidence, Gorsuch ultimately disagreed with Chief Justice John Roberts that when evidence does not match agency explanation, judicial review requires something better than the explanation offered for the action.

Continuing down a path of seemingly shocking reversal from prior principles, in a more recent case, Gorsuch criticized the practice of nationwide injunctions against executive regulations. Ill let Harvard Law Professor Benjamin Spencer put this criticism into context: In an era when the power of the executive is being expanded in varied and disconcerting ways, this effort to denigrate and eliminate the nationwide injunction should be seen for what it is: an attempt by those who favor a more powerful executive to get the federal courts out of the way.

The amount of deference and power Gorsuch was willing to extend to the executive in just these two cases alone is not only unprecedented, perhaps more unfortunately, by any logical sense it should destroy the image of Gorsuch as the great weapon against an ever-increasing and all-powerful administrative state. Moreover, it makes any future criticism or opinion by Gorsuch regarding Auer or Chevron entirely suspect.

With the census case certainly, there was a real, transformative, and a once in a generational chance to reel in the discretion given to unelected bureaucrats, even if only in specific cases where they are caught lying and therefore judicial review becomes most necessary. Responding to that moment, where the evidence does not match the agency explanations, by declaring the agencies reasoning and action are beyond the scope of judicial review rightfully undercuts any attempt by Gorsuch in the future to criticize, say, the Environmental Protection Agency under a president Bernie Sanders.

Of course, as Sullum also rightfully points out, during Gorsuchs time on the Tenth Circuit, his critique of the administrative state was applied in cases that involved issues and defendants from across the ideological spectrum. Therefore, although I can see why some thought Gorsuch would be their champion who would fight the administrative state, it is simply undeniable that when given the chance to do just that, he has repeatedly refused.

Tyler Brokers work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free toemail himor follow him onTwitterto discuss his column.

See more here:

Bbb-but, Gorsuch? - Above the Law

Libertarian party gives us a choice (letter to the editor) – SILive.com

Its time for a new party to take over center stage in the political arena. Time to walk away from the Democrats and Republicans, as neither party has our interest at heart anymore.

The Democrats are a mess between Albany, bail reform, and the Iowa caucus. Whether it is the rigging of the primaries in 2016 for Hillary or blaming everything on Russia, how can anyone trust this party anymore? Just this week, Nancy Pelosi childishly ripping up President Trumps speech. How do you let her represent you? Her actions are outright disrespectful. She may not like the President, but she should still respect the office.

The Republicans have given up in such states as New York and California. Did you know its been over 20 years since a Republican has won a statewide election here in New York? Twenty years, with most of the representatives giving up and quitting, such as Peter King. They claim to cut taxes, but what they really do is rearrange them, to make it appear like they do. They have let our federal budget grow to 23 trillion dollars. So much for our kids having a great life. Maybe our grandchildren will? President Trump continually shows the country his childish side. Yes, Pelosi impeached him. However, I feel he shouldve acted like the better person and shook her hand regardless.

One of the fastest growing parties in the country is the Libertarian Party. We had 23 wins this past election cycle; 7 of them right here in New York state. The enrollment went from 2,000 to over 13,500 people this past year. We have great candidates running across both the state and country.

This brings me to Staten Islands Libertarian Party, which has also significantly grown. We now have 251 registered party members; most attributing the change to the realization that the two big parties dont have our backs anymore. Most feel the two parties have stomped all over the United States Constitution. One member said she has joined the party because she feels, government isnt the answer for everything and has only made things worse through its corruption. Another member joined the Libertarian Party, after being a life-long Republican from the time of Ronald Reagan. I was unhappy with the way things changed after 9/11. War-hawk, neo-cons and the further left/Socialist Democrats just made it unbearable. It seems like most people lost the idea of a Constitutional Republic, where everyone leaves everyone else to live in peace to follow what the Founding Fathers envisioned for us.

If you feel you have some of the same concerns and want true change, please look into the Libertarian Party. We truly are a party for the people, by the people. We want people to live the way they want, without causing harm to others. The Libertarian Party is truly socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. We dont need or want government in every aspect of our lives. Come check us out at LP.org. The state website is LPNY.org and our local site is statenisland-lp.org.

(Joseph Portelle is a Sunnyside resident.)

See the rest here:

Libertarian party gives us a choice (letter to the editor) - SILive.com

Andrew Yang, Who Wanted Libertarians in His Coalition and Opposed Cancel Culture, Exits the Democratic Race – Reason

Businessman Andrew Yang, a longshot candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, has dropped out of the race in advance of what are expected to be disappointing results in the New Hampshire primary.

"I am a numbers guy," said Yang, according toThe Washington Post. "I'm not going to be at a threshold where I get delegates, which makes sticking around not necessarily helpful or productive in terms of furthering the goals of this campaign."

Yang's candidacy was predominantly based on a specific proposal, akin to a universal basic income: Yang wanted to give every adult American $1,000 each month. He described his policy approach as "humanity first," and he wanted to use the powers of the federal government to ease the burdens on Americans whose short-term job prospects have suffered due to outsourcing and automation.

That was never a particularly libertarian agenda, but Yang's practical approachfind ways to help people who may have been hurt by capitalism, rather than destroy capitalism itselfnevertheless made him popular with a diverse range of people, including some libertarians. Former Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate Bill Weld recently cited Yang as his dream running mate. Yang and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (DHawaii) have been the only Democratic candidates thus far this year to make any sort of explicit pitch to libertarians. (Indeed, they are the only two candidates on the New Hamphire ballot to plausibly demonstrate that they know what a libertarian is.)

Yang also generated headlines for denouncing cancel culture. He criticized Saturday Night Live's firing of comedian Shane Gillis, and he earned the endorsement of Dave Chapelle.

"I believe that our country has become excessively punitive and vindictive about remarks that people find offensive or racist and that we need to try and move beyond that, if we can," Yang said. "Particularly in a case where the person isin this casea comedian whose words should be taken in a slightly different light."

Yang's friendly, upbeat approach made him extremely hard to dislike. If elections truly came down to Which candidate would you like to get a beer with?, he would undoubtedly have fared better.

Follow this link:

Andrew Yang, Who Wanted Libertarians in His Coalition and Opposed Cancel Culture, Exits the Democratic Race - Reason

Yang Is Out. Yangism Is Here to Stay. – New York Magazine

Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images

Andrew Yang is out of the race. The Silicon Valley entrepreneur, whod run for president on a platform of giving every American a $1,000-per-month, no-strings-attached benefit payment, withdrew from the Democratic presidential primary before official New Hampshire results were even announced. Endings are hard, New Hampshire, the candidate told supporters on Tuesday night. But this is not an ending. This is a beginning. This is just the starting line. This campaign has awakened something fundamental in this country and ourselves.

Hes right. It would be easy to attribute the unlikely success of the Yang campaign even in his last week of campaigning, the non-billionaire political neophyte was still earning a consistent 4 percent in national polls to the candidates easy accessibility to journalists, or his charming shamelessness when it came to internet-friendly gimmicks, or even to the goofy, improbable charisma he developed on the campaign trail. But the Yang campaign wasnt a sideshow, a stunt, or a vanity project. Even though Yangs quasi-libertarian platform, orthogonal as it was to traditional Democratic politics, was unlikely to assemble a coalition broad enough to secure the nomination, it still activated a group of devoted supporters the YangGang whose insistent, zealous advocacy for their candidate and his signature proposal revealed a strain of politics with a significant and passionate constituency, one thats unlikely to evaporate in the sudden absence of its figurehead. The Yang campaign may be over. But Yangismis here to stay.

The best way to understand Yangism might be as a strain of post-libertarianism one of a handful of descendent, related ideologies now emerging from the wreckage of American libertarianism in the Trump era. Over the last decade, split apart by the response to the global financial crisis and the rise of Donald Trump, the broad libertarianism once regularly touted as insurgent in electoral politics has more or less collapsed. Some supposed libertarians have simply become (or revealed themselves as) Trumpists, or out-and-out white nationalists; others have taken up the project of reconstructing a kind of left-wing libertarianism they call liberaltarian; still others, calling themselves state-capacity libertarians, now advocate for greater government intervention in and support of markets. (Dont even get me started on the ones calling themselves classical liberals.)

And then theres the YangGang, encompassing everyone from the rich, middle-aged cranks and curmudgeons that the Outlines John Ganz calls New American Tories to the alienated teenage doomers of Reddit and Instagram. I doubt that many YangGangers would call themselves libertarians at the moment, or for that matter that many of them called themselves libertarians in the recent past. But they strike me as obvious descendants of the digital activists who drove the Ron Paul campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Mostly young, mostly male, highly online, impatient with politics and confident theyve found the One Weird Trick to get the country back on track.

In his essay, Ganz identifies the Yang platforms three central premises as general social liberalism (let people do what they want!), a rejection of identity politics (this political correctness stuff is out of control!), and UBI (just give people $1,000!). This sort of interpersonal libertarianism essentially, a desire to be left alone matched to an ambitious state program to ensure that the continued feasibility of being left alone provides what Ganz calls a way out of politics and its constant tensions.

Various forms of this sick-of-politics ideology have cycled through the American electoral landscape for decades, and Yangs campaign harks back not just to Pauls, but to Ross Perots straight-talking businessman bid of 1992. But Yangism is a particularly 21st-century edition: Yang supporters are animated by a deep belief that the world is undergoing dramatic environmental and economic change, probably for the worse, andfor which a sclerotic Establishment is unprepared. To prevent or mitigate these changes and to restore and preserve the individual freedom and economic stability that allow people to be left alone politicians must develop creative, disruptive policies premised on straightforward, engineer-minded rationality.

The scale of its ambitions aside, the Yangist varietal of post-libertarianism is not particularly radical. Its quintessential policies are those that are eminently respectable as matters of academic debate, but nearly impossible to imagine being implemented under current political conditions. Its not intently ideological, and it owes much more to the futuristic, information-wants-to-be-free libertarianism of 90s Silicon Valley than it does to the paranoid end-the-Fed libertarianism out of which the Paul campaign originated. As such, its generally amenable to conventional Democratic Party politics in a way that various solutionist libertarianism ideologies of the past were not.

Its in this context that the future of Yangism becomes particularly interesting. The relative success of Yangs run has demonstrated that theres a real appetite for his brand of techno-libertarianism and that its not wedded to the Republican Party. Democrats who can tap into the sentiments that animate Yangism urgency, ambition, skepticism of political Establishment have a good chance of keeping his supporters in the party, and potentially turning them into a significant bloc within Democratic politics. On the other hand, Democrats shouldnt take it for granted. Before the Iowa caucus, Yang suggested that he and Bernie Sanders have a lot of overlap in support. But, he confessed, I frankly think Id have a hard time getting them to do anything that theyre not naturally inclined to do.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

See the original post:

Yang Is Out. Yangism Is Here to Stay. - New York Magazine

Tulsi Gabbard Hopes Libertarian-Minded New Hampshire Will Save Her Presidential Run – BuzzFeed News

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire Its impossible to drive nearly anywhere in southern New Hampshire without seeing the name of Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbards face and name loom from yard signs and billboards all over the place here, in some spots outnumbering those of top-tier candidates like Bernie Sanders. Polls of New Hampshire have shown her pulling in a relatively small but significant amount of support: A CNN/University of New Hampshire poll put her at 6% last week, and the most recent CNN/University of New Hampshire poll showed her winning 5%.

Gabbard has gone for broke in New Hampshire, barely campaigning anywhere else and even renting a house in the state late last year. She says shes getting on a plane to South Carolina to continue campaigning after the primary here on Tuesday, but New Hampshire is where she has her strongest base of support, and where a disappointing finish could damage her rationale for continuing. At her second-to-last town hall, in Concord on Sunday evening, Gabbard spoke in front of a huge New Hampshire state flag. She brought enough of her moms macadamia nut toffee for everyone in the audience. She clearly feels at home.

And Gabbard does have real support here, her anti-interventionist foreign policy message appealing to the libertarian-minded voters who form a key constituency in a state where independents can vote in party primaries. Its very likely not enough to win the state, and Gabbards campaigns profile has lowered after failing to qualify for a debate since November. But its enough to affect the outcome, potentially pulling anti-establishment votes away from Sanders, and it demonstrates her enduring appeal to a small but vocal faction of people who dont fit in anywhere else in the Democratic Party.

Were flying to South Carolina early Wednesday morning, Gabbard told reporters at an Elks lodge in Rochester after a student journalist asked her if she had a path forward if she doesnt win New Hampshire. Were continuing our campaign.

(Her plan for Nevada, the next state to vote after New Hampshire, is less clear. When a reporter asked her whether she would campaign there, she demurred, saying again, Were going to South Carolina.)

Gabbard has rooted her campaign for New Hampshire in appealing to independents, libertarians, and Republicans, and she asks the crowd at the beginning of each event to raise their hands if they are Democrats; if they are Republicans; and if they are independents or libertarians. At three consecutive events over the weekend, a large portion of the audience raised their hands at the third question.

On Sunday, Gabbard emphasized her willingness to appear on conservative media, saying at her Portsmouth event, It's gotten to a point now, and I've experienced this and continue to experience this firsthand, where people say, Tulsi, I won't support you because you go on Fox News.

Ill go on every platform possible, because Im not only running for president to lead the viewers of MSNBC, Gabbard said.

She has intensified her longstanding critique of the Democratic establishment, calling for DNC chair Tom Perez to resign after the chaotic disaster in the Iowa caucuses. Voters, she told reporters Sunday, are increasingly wondering if this system, if this election, is going to be fair, is it going to be transparent, and is actually going to work.

She slammed the DNC for changing rules regarding the number of individual donors a campaign has to have that had previously prevented Michael Bloomberg, who is funding his campaign himself, from qualifying for the debates. This is yet another example of what frustrates voters most, is that the DNC is making decisions about who they get to hear from, who they don't get to hear from, before they cast their votes, Gabbard told reporters on Saturday when I asked.

Her continual dismissal of the Democratic establishment is part of her attempt at casting herself as the one Democratic candidate who can appeal across party lines, and several voters I spoke with in New Hampshire were Republicans or independents who wanted to vote for her.

One, Mark Bessette, 54, already had voted by absentee ballot. He drove all the way from North Conway, in the north of the state, to Portsmouth, in the south, to see her; I like her style, he said. And I like her stances. Slightly different from Trump on some things, but I like her aloha spirit. Bessette said he voted for Trump in the 2016 election.

Last week, Gabbard appeared on Ron Pauls Liberty Report YouTube channel Paul captured second place in New Hampshire in the 2012 Republican primary and on Sunday Business Insider reported that Gary Johnson, the 2016 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, had offered (in a voicemail to a campaign volunteer) to endorse her. Johnson later clarified to Reason magazine that although he likes Gabbard, he is supporting his former running mate Bill Weld, who is challenging President Trump for the Republican nomination.

And although Gabbard sounds exasperated when asked about the persistent speculation that she would consider leaving the Democratic Party altogether and has ruled the idea out many times, she spoke warmly about the concept of third parties in general at her Portsmouth town hall.

An attendee asked her, Would you be receptive to a third political party, one that was perhaps oriented to veterans?

Of course, Gabbard said. I think that in our democracy there should be an openness or a viability for those seeking to form a party, whether it's veterans or based on other interests. I think the problem that we have now is the two-party system doesn't really allow for that, because of how much power and how much money is centralized in the national political parties. Gabbard said the party organizations shut out any kind of viable third party from really standing up and representing a unique constituency within this country.

When I asked her during her press gaggle afterward if her embrace of the idea of a third party indicated any kind of shift on her part, she said several times, I am not running as a third-party candidate.

Gabbards critique of the Democratic Party is stronger and more difficult to dismiss from the inside. And the reality is that most voters in this primary will be Democrats. One couple in Rochester, Claire and Bruce Tessier, 64- and 65-year-olds from Nashua, told me they were choosing between Gabbard and Amy Klobuchar; Pat N, 50, a voter from Nashua who attended Gabbards town hall in Concord, said he was between Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg.

Gabbard even extends olive branches to these kinds of moderate Democrats, telling her Concord audience that although she is against crony capitalism, I do not see the future of our country being a socialist nation.

Her campaign has been idiosyncratic shes a Democrat but shes taken shots at everyone in the party, including what sounded like a veiled one at Sanders, whom shed allied with in 2016. And even as shes appealed to similarly idiosyncratic voters here, itd be a surprise if she manages to get anywhere close to the top in Tuesdays primary. What her path forward is without a strong performance is unclear.

Read the rest here:

Tulsi Gabbard Hopes Libertarian-Minded New Hampshire Will Save Her Presidential Run - BuzzFeed News

Koch showers millions on think tanks to push a restrained foreign policy – POLITICO

The funds are being dispensed amid growing public exhaustion in the United States with American military action overseas. Congress is moving to restrain the executive branchs power to wage war. Some Democratic presidential candidates are running on promises to end the endless wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. And even President Donald Trump, who has yet to deliver on his campaign pledge to reduce the U.S. military footprint abroad, claims to be bringing U.S. troops home.

Will Ruger, vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute, the vehicle for the grants, said its high time that the concepts of realism and restraint got a second look. We think that the marketplace of ideas has been too narrow and has not been healthy, Ruger said. There are a lot of important ideas that either need to be leveraged in our policy analysis or discovered or re-discovered.

Around $4.5 million will go to the Atlantic Council, which will use it to establish what it is calling the New American Engagement Initiative. The grant will support five scholars and activities related in part to how the U.S. balances its use of diplomacy, international alliances and the military.

This is our biggest engagement to date with the Koch Institute, and its because we both recognize that the world were facing cant be addressed with the tools weve used in the past, said Fred Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council. We just need to be more creative to address a dramatically changed international landscape, including new major power competition.

RAND is receiving $2.9 million over five years to support a new center focused on the concept of grand strategy. The initiative, called the Center for Analysis of U.S. Grand Strategy, will be led by scholar Miranda Priebe. It will look at how various grand strategies are affected by technological change and other global trends.

The Chicago Council has been granted $1.9 million over five years. The funds will cover two think tank positions; the council also will hold events and other outreach in the Midwest to foster discussions about the role of the U.S. internationally and how the notion of restraint fits in.

The Center for the National Interest, which already leans to the right and has long advocated a realist foreign policy, is receiving $900,000 over two years to support three new roles and one existing position. One of the new positions will focus on Asia specifically China.

POLITICO NEWSLETTERS

A newsletter from POLITICO that unpacks essential global news, trends, and decisions.

Last year, Koch turned heads when he gave nearly $500,000 to help establish the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a new think tank devoted to reining in the use of U.S. military action. The institute also received roughly the same amount from liberal billionaire financier George Soros.

Charles Koch also helped co-found the libertarian Cato Institute in the 1970s and has provided it with financial support for many years. But his relationship with Cato has at times been acrimonious.

Koch, who leads the diversified, multinational Koch Industries, is now looking to expand his influence in the foreign policy space through other means. For instance, hes offering grants for academics and others seeking to research topics such as relations with China and the future of U.S. alliances.

Ruger stressed that the Koch Institute respects the freedom of the think tanks it is funding and realizes that the research they do may not always produce results that align with the pro-restraint model.

What matters more, he said, is simply to get people to think beyond the conventional wisdom that places a priority on military force.

There is an inflection point in American politics right now, Ruger said. Theres a real opportunity for good scholarship to impact the debate.

See the article here:

Koch showers millions on think tanks to push a restrained foreign policy - POLITICO

Sanders and Bloomberg want to redistribute wealth. Most millionaires and billionaires don’t. – Thehour.com

Sen. Bernie Sanders' success in the Democratic presidential primary contests Iowa and New Hampshire suggests that voters are moved by his message that rich people have rigged the economic system to their advantage, and that government should do something to change that.

Both Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have promised to tax wealth and deliver universal health care, free public preschool and college education, and a stronger social safety net. The two candidates have also promised to reform the campaign finance system so politicians are less beholden to the wealthy, and have focused on raising money through small donations.

What's puzzling is that both Sanders and Warren are millionaires. Although somewhat more moderate on policy, the two billionaires in the Democratic race - Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg - also say they want to reverse the nation's growing economic disparities. Last week, The New York Times published an opinion article from Bloomberg outlining initiatives to reduce economic inequality.

It cannot be simultaneously true that "millionaires and billionaires" are rigging the system and yet are also trying to level an uneven playing field. Are these affluent Democratic contenders' political views characteristic of millionaires and billionaires generally? In short, no. Our research finds that wealthy people are more likely than others to believe the system is fair, and are more economically conservative than others. These Democratic candidates represent a small but significant minority.

- - -

What do the rich think about the fairness of our economy?

Wealthy people have a great deal of power to influence economic and political outcomes in the United States, and so it's important to understand what they believe to be the causes of - and possible solutions to - economic inequality. The economic elite are, by definition, members of a small group not well represented in typical surveys. They tend to keep their views on economics and politics to themselves. The few high-quality surveys of this group confirm that, on average, wealthy Americans are more libertarian than the general population, but there's certainly more to learn.

To better understand the perspectives of the economic elite, we worked with the company YouGov to survey online a broad and diverse sample of 450 highly affluent Americans, whom we defined as those living in households with pretax incomes of more than $350,000 per year and/or more than $2 million in financial assets. The resulting sample represents about the top 3% to 5% of U.S. households in income and wealth. In addition, we surveyed 450 Americans from the general population as a comparison group. YouGov is the industry leader in assembling representative samples from its millions of opt-in participants. We also demonstrate that our samples reflect the populations they are intended to represent by comparing their characteristics to the probability-based Survey of Consumer Finances and employing population weights.

We began by asking why our respondents thought some people are more successful than others in life. Is success a result of hard work, intelligence, luck or being born into wealth? We also asked respondents why they thought people differed in drive or intelligence - because of upbringing, choices, DNA? We asked respondents to award such factors a score on a seven-point scale, with seven being very important and zero not important at all.

To better understand the political implications of these beliefs, we asked for respondents' views on economic policy, including the government safety net, taxes on the wealthy and economic inequality.

Finally, we asked people to share their age, gender, race, education, region and religiosity. We control for these characteristics throughout our analyses.

- - -

Wealthy people are more likely than others to believe the United States is a meritocracy

All economic groups in our survey viewed "hard work" and "being intelligent" as better explanations for success than "coming from a wealthy family" and "being lucky." This is consistent with the nation's long-standing belief in meritocracy: that people become successful via hard work combined with talent.

Nevertheless, our affluent respondents were even more likely than others to attribute success to individuals' characteristics and behavior, on average awarding "hard work" and "intelligence" close to the top score. Further, respondents from the top 1% of U.S. households in income and wealth were the most likely to insist that these success-linked traits are either chosen or innate rather than environmentally caused.

- - -

What are the political implications of believing in meritocracy?

Not surprisingly, respondents' beliefs about what causes economic inequality correlated with their beliefs about what policies the U.S. government should enact. The affluent with the most economically conservative political beliefs were the most likely to say that inequality comes from character traits such as hard work or intelligence, especially when they believed those character traits come from either individual choices or genetics. Meanwhile, affluent respondents had more liberal policy leanings when they said inequality grows from forces outside the individual such as luck, family ties or upbringing. As a result, there's a noticeable ideological divide among the affluent.

Our comparison group of the less affluent wasn't as consistent in connecting their beliefs about meritocracy to politics. On the one hand, like the affluent, middle- and lower-class Americans who said outside forces shape individuals' economic fortunes tended to support progressive economic policies. On the other hand, there was little evidence that ordinary Americans who thought inequality boiled down to character were especially conservative.

- - -

Is there an ideology of affluence (or two)?

In a nation well-known for its belief in meritocracy, those at the very top are, on average, the most likely to view our deep economic divides as fair. Our billionaire president has frequently echoed this. He is particularly enamored of genetic theories, saying, for example, "Some people aren't meant to be rich. . . . It's just something you have, something you're born with."

Our study suggests that the belief that people deserve whatever success or failure comes their way results in the libertarian ethos many highly affluent people hold. In keeping with these views, the Trump administration has reduced taxes on the wealthy, diminished government services for lower-income Americans and plans to shrink the safety net further.

Our data also suggest that Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg and Steyer are not outliers. A nontrivial minority of the wealthy disagree with their economic peers, believing that the system is rigged and that the government should do something about it.

- - -

Suhay is an associate professor and graduate program director in the department of government at American University's school of public affairs, and lead editor of the forthcoming "Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion," with Bernard Grofman and Alex Trechsel. Klasnja is an assistant professor in the school of foreign service and department of government at Georgetown University. Rivero is a research data scientist at Westat. For other commentary from The Monkey Cage, an independent blog anchored by political scientists from universities around the country, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage.

Read this article:

Sanders and Bloomberg want to redistribute wealth. Most millionaires and billionaires don't. - Thehour.com

Tuesday is the deadline to register to vote in March primary – The-review

The deadline to register to vote in the presidential primary election in Ohio on March 17 is Tuesday.

CANTON If youre not registered to vote, you have until 11:59 p.m. Tuesday to register for the March 17 presidential primary.

To be eligible, you must be a U.S. citizen whos lived in Ohio for at least 30 days prior to the primary and be age 18 or older by the Nov. 3 general election.

Those who are 17 but will turn 18 by Nov. 3 can vote March 17 for candidates. But they cannot vote in elections for party state central committee, party county central committee or on issues such as school levies.

If you havent voted for six years and your local county Board of Elections hasnt heard from you in at least six years, your voting registration may have been canceled.

To check, go to the Stark County Board of Elections website at starkcountyohio.gov/board-of-elections. Click Am I registered?

Enter your name and date of birth. If youre registered, your name, address and polling location will be displayed. To see which contests would be on your ballot, scroll down to Sample Ballot and select Dem for Democratic, Lib for Libertarian, NP for Non-partisan and Rep for Republican ballot.

You can only vote in one partys primaries to select a nominee such as for president to run in the general election on Nov. 3. If you choose to vote in the Democratic primary, you cant vote in the Republican primary or vice versa. If you select the nonpartisan ballot, you will not be able to select any candidates and can only vote on issues.

Online option

You can register online or by submitting a paper form. The option to register online has been available since January 2017. You need to submit your name, address, date of birth and either the last four digits of your Social Security number or Ohio drivers license number. You can also submit by paper an official document like a utility bill or bank statement with your address instead of the last four digits of the Social Security number or drivers license number. Those registering with a paper form must sign it.

To register online, update your voter registration address or download a paper voter registration form, go to: olvr.ohiosos.gov.

You can also get paper ballot forms at your county Board of Elections, public libraries, Bureaus of Motor Vehicles offices and high schools. They must be filled in, received and time stamped at the above locations in person or by mail until they close Tuesday.

The Stark County Board of Elections is closed Monday for Presidents Day. But its offices at 3525 Regent Ave. NE in Canton will be open 8:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday for people wishing to register to vote in person.

Travis Secrest, administrative assistant for the Stark County Board of Elections, said some links on social media that offer voter registration appear to go to private websites that are apparently seek to mine peoples personal information. He recommends going directly to the Ohio Secretary of States website.

Also, filling out and giving voter registration forms to an individual doing a voter registration drive does not guarantee the forms will be submitted to the Board of Elections. Its best to register online or submit the forms by mail or in person.

Residents are encouraged to later confirm online that theyre registered or call the Stark County Board of Elections at (330) 451-8683.

Early voting

Early voting in Ohio starts Wednesday. Stark County voters can vote in person at 3525 Regent Ave. NE until March 16. They will be required to show ID or provide an official document with their address or fill out an absentee ballot application.

Between Feb. 19 and March 6, early voting will take place 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. From March 7 to March 14, the hours will be 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturdays. Then 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday, March 15 and 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Monday, March 16.

Secrest said a significantly larger number of voters cast ballots in a March presidential primary in contrast with an odd-numbered year May primary with local races. Between Wednesday and March 16, the board will be 15 to 20 employees on hand to help minimize waits. The board will set up 20 touchscreens for early voting this year, up from 10 for prior votes.

People can request a paper absentee ballot that they can mail to their county board of elections or submit in person. As of Friday, 1,362 had requested absentee ballots in Stark County. The breakdown was 542 Republicans, 740 Democrats, three libertarians and 78 who wanted issues-only non-partisan ballots.

To do so, go to starkcountohio.go/board-of-elections and select on the menu on the left Absentee/Early Voting. Then click on Request an absentee ballot by mail. You must say on the form whether you want a Republican, Democratic, Libertarian or non-partisan ballot. If you don make a selection, it will delay you getting your ballot.

Requests for an absentee optical scan paper ballot must be received by a local county board of elections by noon March 14.

Voters then mark their selections on an absentee ballot with a blue-ink or black-ink pen, seal it in a provided envelope and must sign the envelope or the ballot is invalid. If you mail it in, it must be postmarked by March 16. If you or a close family member turns it in person at the Board of Elections, it must be done by 7:30 p.m. March 17. It cannot be submitted at a polling location.

If you request an absentee ballot but you forget that you did so and you go to your polling location to vote on March 17, you will have to fill out a provisional ballot. The votes will count once the Board has verified that you cast your absentee ballot.

Voting hours at Stark Countys 120 polling locations on March 17 will be 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Reach Repository writer Robert Wang at (330) 580-8327 or robert.wang@cantonrep.com. On Twitter: @rwangREP

Read more from the original source:

Tuesday is the deadline to register to vote in March primary - The-review