KEENE, N.H. Former New Mexico governor and 2016 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson offered his support to Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard ahead of Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary in a voicemail obtained by Insider.

"Hey, I was asked a long time ago to endorse Tulsi, and I did, and you know, whatever I can do I'm not active on social media but I did endorse her, and you know, whatever quote you wanna attribute to me to say vote for her, you got it," Johnson told a local Gabbard volunteer.

"Anyway, talk to you later," he continued.

Gabbbard, a 38-year-old Congresswoman from Hawaii, has set herself apart in American politics through her willingness to buck her own party.

During the 2016 election, she resigned from a post with the Democratic National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders and allege the DNC was hindering his campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton. Most recently, she voted "present" on both articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in the House, the only representative to do so in either party.

While Gabbard has denied mulling a potential third party run in the past often insisting she will remain in the Democratic primary "through the convention" she told a voter in Greenland, N.H. today that she would be receptive to a third party in general, according to Michael Shure of i24 News. She later clarified to BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray, "I am not running as a third party candidate."

Although no candidate in either major party has won the New Hampshire primary by winning among independent voters without a plurality of support in their own party, Gabbard has drawn a significant proportion of supporters to her events who self-identify as Republicans, 2016 Trump voters and non-Democrats, particularly libertarians.

Here is the original post:

Gary Johnson offers help to Gabbard campaign amid 3rd party talk - Business Insider - Business Insider

Early voting for the March 3 primary starts Thursdayin Forsyth County, with a new look for voters as most make their first use of new voting machines.

Voting starts at 8 a.m. at 11 locations around the county, including the main elections office in downtown Winston-Salem.

Offices from U.S. president to Forsyth County commissioner will be on the ballot, as well as a proposal to impose a quarter-cent sales tax meant to boost teacher pay.

Voting takes place from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on weekdays through Feb. 28.

Saturday voting will take place on Feb. 22 and Feb. 29, but not this Saturday, said Tim Tsujii, the county elections director. When Saturday voting occurs, voting will be from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Tsujii said Wednesday that the county's new voting machines are ready to go.

"All the machines for early voting have been tested, and we are in the process of delivering them to all the sites," Tsujii said.

Members of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Constitution and Green parties all have primaries. Unaffiliated voters can choose to vote in the Democratic, Republican or Libertarian parties, as those parties have opened up their primaries to unaffiliated voters.

The Constitution and Green parties have closed primaries, meaning only members of the party can vote in the primary.

An unaffiliated voter who doesn't want to vote in a party primary can ask for the nonpartisan ballot. The only contest on that ballot is the one on the quarter-cent sales tax increase.

As of Feb. 3, the county had 256,213 registered voters. There were 101,411 Democrats, 73,328 Republicans and 1,391 Libertarians. The Constitution Party had 109 members here and the Green Party had 86 members.

The deadline to vote in the March 3 primary passed on Feb. 7, but people who are not registered but otherwise eligible can both register and vote during the early-voting period.

For the 2020 election cycle, and for years to come, Forsyth County voters will be using machine-counted paper ballots in both early voting and election-day voting.

That's a change-up from the recent past, which saw touch-screen voting in early voting, followed by paper ballots for election-day voters.

New rules require all counties to have voting systems that rely on paper ballots. Voters mark their choices by filling in ovals on the paper ballot. No write-in votes are allowed in a primary election, Tsujii said.

People with disabilities can request use of a touch-screen voting machine that will be available at each polling place, but even that produces a paper ballot that can then be counted by machine. The touch-screen machine can even read out names to those who need that.

Tsujii said the tabulators that voters put their ballots in for counting have the ability to detect mismarked ballots or ones that are marked for more candidates than the voter is supposed to select.

But the machines won't pick up on someone not voting at all on some contest, since some voters pick and choose which races they want to vote in.

Voters living in any precinct can vote at any of the early-voting sites.

*Forsyth County Board of Elections, 201 N. Chestnut St. in the Forsyth County Government Center.

*Brown & Douglas Community Center, 4725 Indiana Ave., Winston-Salem.

*Clemmons Branch Library, 3554 Clemmons Road, Clemmons.

*Kernersville Branch Library (Paddison Memorial Branch Library), 248 Harmon Lane, Kernersville.

*Lewisville Branch Library, 6490 Shallowford Road, Lewisville.

*Mazie Woodruff Center, 4905 Lansing Drive, Winston-Salem.

*Old Town Recreation Center, 4550 Shattalon Drive, Winston-Salem.

*Polo Park Recreation Center, 1850 Polo Road, Winston-Salem.

*Rural Hall Branch Library, 7125 Broad St., Rural Hall.

*Southside Branch Library, 3185 Buchanan St., Winston-Salem.

*Winston-Salem State University Anderson Center, 1545 Reynolds Park Road, Winston-Salem.

Read the original:

Early voting starts Thursday - Winston-Salem Journal

On Thursday, tucked inside a basement college classroom in Durham, New Hampshire, that could have doubled as a bunker, Weld described the stakes of his campaign. His expectations were the floor, he told me, leaning back and opening a bag of popcorn. If he got even a semblance of support, it meant that Republicansand independents, who are able to vote in the states primarywere receptive to someone other than Trump. If Trumps command of the Republican Party is complete, Weld at least hopes to be the firewall preventing Trumpism from spreading beyond the GOP.

Read: Breakfast with Bill Weld

Ive always been on the libertarian edge of the Republican Party, he said. But I certainly dont feel a member of this party as its represented in Washington, D.C., right now. There should be no illusions as to whether Weld will win the nomination. (He almost certainly wont.) The president boasts a 94 percent approval rating among Republicans, according to the latest Gallup poll. But being an underdog has its benefits. Theres nothing for me to be fearful about, Weld said.

Among independents, Trump has a 42 percent approval rating. Weld believes that he can persuade those independents to stick with him in several of the open primariesand semi-open primaries, such as New Hampshireswith what he calls the whole truth about Trump: that the president is an outrageous racist who is unqualified for office. While Pat Buchananesque finishes are out of reachthe political pundit won 37 percent of the New Hampshireprimary vote in 1992 against the incumbent, George H. W. Bushan insurgent influence campaign may not be.

Never Trumpism might be more of a capillary than a vein, Weld believes, but its a vital one. People ask me, you know, Why are you in this? he said.I mean, my goodness, were looking at a president who thinks that he doesnt have to listen to anybody and hes unwilling to read anything. He added, Thats dangerous for the United States.

Thirty minutes before Weld and I spoke, he was upstairs sitting in an audience, searching for a microphone to offer more of a comment than a question to Deval Patrick, also a former governor of Massachusetts, who was speaking at a forum on higher education. Weld had called Patrick the day after Patrick announced his run for the presidency to let him know that he admired what he was doing. Then, together, they lauded another former Massachusetts governor for his vote to impeach the president. We can welcome Governor [Mitt] Romney to the good guys club this time, Weld joked. (Patrick dropped out of the race this morning after failing to gain traction in Iowa and New Hampshire.)

I asked Weld what it would mean if hes actually able to sway some Republican voters. It means that there is an appetite for an alternative to Trump, he said. Then, I asked, what if hes not successful? Well, he said, it means that Republicans are not willing to listen to someone whos pointing out that Emperor Trump doesnt have a nice new fancy set of clothes on.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Original post:

Why Bill Weld Is Really Running Against Trump - The Atlantic

Online gambling has been prohibited in most states for a number of years now, but things are slowly starting to change. After new legislation in the supreme court, states are now being allowed to choose their own online gambling laws. Many are starting to open up possibilities for both customers and businesses. If youve seen how the gambling industry has grown in countries like the UK, youll have seen how much money there is to be made. But what does this mean for you, as a consumer in a newly legalized gambling state? Maybe you dont live near a casino and have never had the opportunity to put a sports bet on. If thats the case, then youre in the right place. In this article, were going to look at a few ways you can make the most of online gambling if you dont know much about it.

One of the best things about online gambling for customers is how easy it is to place a bet. Its so much more convenient than having to make a trip to the casino or other betting premises. Thats because you can access online betting sites with any internet enabled device. So you can place a bet when youre on the move with your smart phone or tablet device. You can also actually place bets when youre at a live sporting event or venue. With sites like Nairabet you can access them easily and place bets no matter where you are.

Another key benefit to users is the ability to enjoy bonuses and other incentives. The online gambling industry is highly competitive. That means each company needs to use powerful marketing ploys to try and get people to sign up to them rather than the competition. This brings huge benefits for the customer, who can enjoy massive multiples of their deposit in bonus funds. Sometimes, you dont even need to deposit. Thats called a no-deposit bonus, and while not normally as much as a deposit bonus, can still give you money to play with without risking your own funds.

While traditional casinos do offer a form of incentiveby comping meals and rooms, this is never as direct or clear for the consumer.

If you win, its actually much easier to get your money with online betting companies. Some sites actually pay out in hours and you can use online wallets such as PayPal or all major credit cards.

The problem with many traditional bookmakers is that they dont really allow you to bet on a vast range of different sports. Thats simply not the case with online betting, the right sites cover hundreds of different events and a ton of different sports. Youll also be able to bet on all sorts of markets which might not be available in traditional bookies.

Because online sites are always trying to compete with a vast array of different ventures, you can get the best offers as well as the most competitive odds. A bricks and mortar bookmakers might be the only site in town where you can bet, and casinos can also have captive audience. With online gambling, the consumer has the best chance of finding the best odds in the industry and they can use oddschecking sites to help with this.

There are a few reasons why many people prefer to stick with what they know, but if you havent tried online betting before and are a fan of gambling, you really have been missing out.

Originally posted here:

How to Make the Most of New Gambling Legislation - The Libertarian Republic

Ive always been a Republican. I grew up in a very conservative Catholic family. From childhood until I left for college, we lived in Rancho Santa Fe, a well-known Republican stronghold of Southern California. My parents reside there to this day. My undergraduate studies were in economics and government at reputationally conservative Claremont McKenna College.

Most of the candidates Ive voted for or donated to over the years have been Republican. I have hosted meetings for my District (28) Republican Committee at my home in South Anchorage. My politics were part of my identity and I intended to one day seek elected office as a Republican. Along the way, I met, collaborated with, and befriended wonderful people on all ends of the political spectrum.

Regardless of ones background, a quality shared by humans is the ability to blend cognitive, experiential learning with instinct. It enables us to read a situation and, if necessary, take appropriate, decisive action. In other words, the famous axiom: when the time is right, youll know. Anyone reading these words can pinpoint illuminating moments in their life when they simply knew it was time; time to leave a relationship that was beyond repair, time to leave a job that wasnt working out; insert your own experience when, like the proverbial light bulb turning on in your head, you knew it was time to move on.

Advertisement. For information about purchasing ads, please click here.

For me, such a watershed moment came on February 5, 2020. I knew it was time to leave the Republican Party. I registered as a member of the Alaska Libertarian Party.

Part of getting older is coming to terms with realities that shift ones paradigm. Throughout my two decades of adulthood, Ive witnessed a material and tragic shift in the Republican Party, rapidly accelerated in recent years by President Trump. Undoubtedly, the Republican Party now prioritizes a socially conservative agenda, which grows increasingly obsolete with the passage of time. In its pursuit, the Party has irreparably alienated a critical mass of Gen-Xers, Millennials, and Gen-Zs.

Ignored by the Party is fiscal conservatism and, at times, basic decency. Last September, I published an article in Must Read Alaska documenting this shift from my perspective, and holding President Trump accountable for (1) his rapid expansion of Federal debt at a rate now exceeding its ascent under President Obama, (2) the denigration to the Republican brand that his words and actions have brought about, and (3) his fiscally liberal policies and interference with free markets. If you need a good laugh, peruse the comments that follow.

Despite our presidents rhetoric denouncing socialism, socialism is, indeed, a likely result when sovereign debt reaches the kind of unsustainable levels America now owes. World history demonstrates such causality through multiple examples. Just days ago, our president reaffirmed his liberal fiscal policies through a State of the Union address celebrating his administrations spending and growth of the federal government, all to the applause of the Republican Congress. Further, the newest budget posited by President Trump this week continues deficits for years to come, accruing trillions more to our debt.

Republican leaders also empower our presidents lack of civility, respect, and honesty. For years now, Ive watched as Party leaders condoned, and at times celebrated, the vile, often grammatically and factually inaccurate statements made daily by our president. Many shrug it off with the casual refrain Ive heard countless times in Republican circles: I wish he would just stop using Twitter This response is insufficient.

As if to confirm my decision, I listened to our Presidents press conference celebrating his impeachment acquittal, using the terms sick, evil people to describe his political adversaries. Dont get me wrong, Democratic leaders embarrassed themselves in this impeachment spectacle, but sick, evil people are terms we once assigned to terrorists like Dylann Roof or Osama Bin Laden. Now, this rhetoric is for people with whom we simply disagree.

Like I said. When the time is right, youll know.

Advertisement. For information about purchasing ads, please click here.

Im also not blind to a similar chasm within the Democratic Party between the more moderate, blue dog types, and the woke, progressive left that seeks a socialist and socially engineered America. Becoming increasingly disenfranchised are those lost among the reasonable middle ground. The moderate and independent voters, who lack a voice in the primary system (which in many jurisdictions is closed), end up stuck choosing between increasingly extreme candidates selected by the bases within the two-party system.

Make no mistake Republican Party leadership is all-in on President Trump. Alaska, and other states, cancelled this years Republican primary. Democratic Party leadership acted similarly during the 2012 cycle. This year, the Democrats appear all-in to defeat President Trump with the most progressive and unrealistic policies in our nations history. The two-party system has devolved into an all-out manipulative fight for power; serving the people is an afterthought.

My words are not intended to bash Republicans or Democrats; most of the individual members of those parties are inherently good Americans. Rather, I submit these words as an invitation of empowerment to finally challenge the two-party system in a practical way.

If you care about our future, then I respectfully challenge you, the average American like me, to put your credible name behind meaningful action.

From ballot access to a spot on the debate stage, election cycle infrastructure favors the two-party system. It is tough for a third party to gain access and exposure. Lawsuits, op-eds, and open letter pleas like one I sent to the Commission on Presidential Debates in 2016 will do little to change that. Running the same perennial candidates to maintain ballot access, though a noble and at times selfless endeavor, weakens the brand over time.

This futility will continue until we are ready to take some calculated risks and make bold changes. Its a lost cause to try and reform the Republican and Democratic parties from within. I, like many others, have tried and wear the scars to prove it.

Scattered, well continue to lack a meaningful voice. United, under the strength of an established party, we will have a seat at the table. This approach is not just ideological, it is practical. United under the same party, we in the reasonable middle will eventually obtain the membership numbers needed to (1) guarantee access to ballots and debate stages, and (2) develop a deep enough bench to field high-quality, credible, and electable candidates.

No party is a perfect fit and I certainly dont agree with everything in the Libertarian platform. Neither will you. Focus, instead, on the basics. Libertarians believe in strict adherence to the benefits and burdens of our Constitution, not just cherry-picking certain parts. We believe in smaller governments, free markets, fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets, the separation of church and state, and equal (not special) rights for all regardless of race, religion (or lack thereof), or sexual orientation. While you and I as individuals may disagree on the details and nuances, many in the reasonable middle can unite on those basics.

And yes, every party has its warts the Libertarians are no different, yet receive disproportionate media attention. However, with more credible individuals becoming Libertarians to support those members already working for years behind the scenes to mainstream the Party, the paradigm will shift.

If the above words resonate and we agree on the basics, I invite you to make the switch with me. This is a long-term plan in a political climate inundated with short-term thinking, so keep your immediate expectations in check. Momentum is, however, building. Libertarians are making material gains every year, rapidly expanding their membership rolls and accruing victories in local and state elections at record levels.

Advertisement. For information about purchasing ads, please click here.

Im willing to leverage my credibility, for what its worth, toward that momentum. I hope youll join me.

Peter J. Caltagirone is an Anchorage resident, pilot, and oil and gas attorney licensed in five states. He is now a proud member of the Alaska Libertarian Party. The above words are published in his individual capacity.

View post:

Why I decided to leave the Republican Party - Alaska Landmine

Representative Tulsi Gabbard speaks during the New Hampshire Democratic Party State Convention. (Nic Antaya / The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Tulsi Gabbards political style has never fit neatly into any traditional partisan paradigm. Most of the coverage she receives from the corporate mediaher termis highly derogatory and dismissive, often dwelling on trivialities in an attempt to delegitimize her. But polls in New Hampshire, where she has focused her campaign, put her as high as 7 percentin contention with some of the supposedly leading candidates. So as a potential factor in the outcome of the primary here on February 11, it is worth taking a closer look at where her support is coming from.Ad Policy

Some of Gabbards most ardent volunteers throughout New Hampshire are self-described libertarians, which at first might seem incongruous. Gabbard advocates a variety of policy proposalslike a form of single-payer health care and a ban on fossil fuelsthat plainly contravene the libertarian philosophy of little or no government intervention in the economic marketplace.

But in my travels across the state (I have covered her here daily for over a month), many of these libertarians told me that they are drawn to Gabbard because they agree with her as a matter of emphasisthat she has made fundamentally transforming US foreign policy her central campaign themeand whatever philosophical disagreements they might have on domestic issues are of lesser importance. Some have even come around to the notion of a government-administered universal health care program on the grounds that if the United States is going to be making such massive expenditures anyway, instead of wasting money on endless overseas conflict, why not redirect those resources toward something that is actually socially beneficial?

As Gabbard put it to me, this reflects her ability to reframe the conversation outside the institutional constructs that usually shape what people think is achievable. Other candidates like Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar routinely invoke their intention to work across the aisle. But fundamentally, they are all operating from within the same outmoded paradigm, where bipartisanship typically means splitting the difference between how many bombs you drop, or which social welfare programs you cut.

Gabbard also invokes the need to cultivate trans-partisan cooperation, but hers is a different paradigmcentered on her belief that upending the current foreign policy consensus must be any presidents first priority. And indeed, skepticism of US foreign policy is a cross-cutting ideological phenomenon, which explains why Gabbards events across the state draw such an idiosyncratic coterie of supporters: everyone from antiwar peaceniks who idolize Noam Chomsky, to erstwhile Trump supporters who say she is the only Democrat theyd ever consider voting for, to lifelong standard-fare liberals who simply believe she has the right personal characteristics to defeat Trump.Related Article

Its certainly an unusual confluence. But it shows how making foreign policy her foremost, animating themean anomaly in the recent history of US presidential campaignscan change the axis around which politics is normally framed. When politicians are able to make arguments that have resonance across the partisan spectrum, that ability is usually lauded as a valuable political asset. But with Gabbard, the prevailing media depiction is highly scornful; her motives are often depicted as sinister or mysterious. Of course, there are any number of legitimate criticisms one might make of Gabbard. With their condescending derision, though, corporate media merely reveals that it lacks the vocabulary to characterize a candidate whose message transcends ordinary political boundaries.

For instance, while Gabbard clearly recognizes that compromises are often necessary over the course of a legislative process, she draws different lines of demarcation as to which compromises are tolerable. Unlike other candidates, she is not going to compromise with defense industry lobbyists to enact whatever their favored regime change project might be on a given daywhile at the same time insisting that she will treat everyone, even the most unreconstructed war hawks, with basic human decency. Respect does not equate to compliance, she told me.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Gabbards most committed supporters tend to be heterodox left-leaning voters, but part of the reason she has drawn support from a notable constituency of libertarians and conservatives is her distinctive personality, shaped by her immersion in the culture of the US militaryin many ways a fundamentally conservative (and male-dominated) institution. She does not traffic in cheap anti-Trump insults, nor does she have much patience for the culture-war theatrics favored by many of Trumps more excitable opponents.

New Hampshire state Representative Werner Horn, a staunch Trump backer who attended one of Gabbards recent town hall events, told me he thinks she would be the most dangerous candidate against Trump because she doesnt buy into his toxic roadshow.

This doesnt mean Gabbard goes easy on Trumpshe calls for his defeat just about every daybut her approach to criticizing Trump differs from the typical Democrats in a way that even many Trump voters find appealing. As Trump abandons his campaign promise to stop squandering resources on needless wars (and starts new conflicts in the Middle East) Gabbard has unique standing to draw attention to those failures without being accused of operating merely as a knee-jerk anti-Trump partisan.

That same mindset has left Gabbard the only remaining Democratic candidate not to be implicated in the futile impeachment melodramawhich this week ended in predictable failure. By voting present on the articles of impeachment in December, Gabbard set herself apart from the whole American political landscape. Her rationale for that vote was explicitly not to absolve Trump of culpability for his many acts of wrongdoing. Rather, it was a repudiation both of Trumpwhose most severe misconduct, like illegally committing acts of war, was nowhere to be found in the impeachment articlesand of a fatally flawed process that relied on dangerous assumptions in the realm of foreign policy.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

A vote in favor of the impeachment articles would have directly contradicted Gabbards core campaign themes. She elaborated on this a recent event in Manchester, expressing alarm that a principal element of Democrats impeachment case entailed elevating permanent national security state officials like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and diplomat George Kentthe very sort of people Gabbard is running to dislodge from poweras the guardians of whats been described by Representative Adam Schiff and other impeachment managers as official US policy.

Those statements in those hearings really took me aback, Gabbard said at the Manchester event. Because they were coming from people whomany of them were decades-long bureaucrats serving in the State Departmentwho were basically saying they were the leaders of our countrys US foreign policy, not the president of the United States.

In other words, as much as Gabbard objects to Trumps conduct of foreign policy, the proper recourse in her mind is to vote him out of officenot establish a precedent whereby unelected security state functionaries are permitted to seize quasi-autonomous authority over official policymaking from a democratically elected president.

Gabbard gained a national profile in 2016 for resigning from the Democratic National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders; she then became one of his most prominent surrogates and was chosen to enter his name into nomination at that years convention. In recent weeks, Gabbard has continued to come to Bernies defense: countering the allegations of his purported sexism made by Elizabeth Warren, visiting one of his New Hampshire field offices, and even using the #ILikeBernie Twitter hashtag.

As Gabbard campaigns in New Hampshire, she has touched on themes that would customarily find resonance on the leftcondemning what she describes as Israels continued illegal occupation of Palestine, for example, as well as the imperialistic mindset of the Washington political classbut detractors allege (with some justification) a certain tension in her outlook. For instance, it is true that Gabbard, the first Hindu ever elected to Congress, has taken a conciliatory posture toward a number of ignominious foreign leadersnamely Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as Syrias Bashar al-Assad. But often ignored is that Gabbard has also made a point to meet with opposition figures in both India and Syria, born of her conviction that diplomatic engagement requires meeting everyone, without preconditions, as a necessary prerequisite to shifting US foreign policy away from fruitless interventionism. (Hence, she was the first candidate to denounce the Trump administrations regime change gambit in Venezuela, and is the only candidate besides Sanders to label the ousting of Evo Morales in Bolivia a coup.)

In my observations, Gabbards rhetoric does not materially change depending on the person shes talking to or the platform shes speaking on. Critics often complain about her frequent appearances on Fox News, but overlook that she says much the same thing in that venue as she does on left-wing independent media. (And she attracted the ire of the Republican National Committee for condemning Trumps assassination of Qassim Suleimani on Fox News last month). Her logic of broad-based engagement even resulted in Gabbards meeting with Trump himself, shortly after the 2016 election, to discuss foreign policy. She said at the time that the purpose of the meeting was to dissuade him from filling his cabinet with neoconservative warmongers. Now that Trump has done just that, she again has unique standing to call him to account.

The same pattern applies to her impeachment position. In declining to echo the standard Democratic talking points on the subjectshe has repeatedly said that a shortsighted impeachment would only embolden Trump, making it more likely that hes reelectedGabbard is singularly positioned to detach herself from the political fallout in the aftermath of Trumps acquittal. She may still not be electable in the way pundits usually understand the term. But we have already seen the definition change to accommodate a black president, female candidatesand now even a socialist. Perhaps the pundits will be proven wrong again.

Original post:

Tulsi Gabbard in New Hampshire - The Nation

He declined to enumerate his expectations. The goal is to go all the way, ideally to catch lightning in a bottle, he said.

At his election-night party in Manchester, where about 50 supporters paid little attention to the vote tallies being shown on two large TVs, few seemed to be surprised that Trump was declared the winner shortly after the polls closed.

Karen Mason, 68, a community college professor from Greenland, N.H., said she had decided to vote for Weld because of his courage to stand up to Trump.

Donald Trump has destroyed our country, she said. I was so proud that Weld was going to take on Trump, and I thought he was worth my protest vote.

A Republican before 2016, she vowed to vote for anyone but Trump in November. This is no longer the America that I recognize, said Mason, who passed out literature for Weld.

K. Peddlar Bridges, 73, a writer from Laconia, N.H., got to know Weld when he used to live in Massachusetts, where Weld served two terms as governor in the 1990s.

I think he has the answers we need, he said of Weld.

Asked if he worried that he was wasting his vote by casting it for Weld, Bridges said: If you vote by conscience, that doesnt matter.

About an hour after the polls closed, Weld addressed his supporters, comparing his campaign to a Prussian fighting machine and happy warriors.

Were going to be locked in combat with Mr. Trump for a long time, he said. We hope were going to have a big impact on the election.

Aside from removing Trump, he was running to eliminate large fiscal deficits, remove carbon from the atmosphere, and preserve free trade, he said.

This has been a labor of love, he added.

With 40 percent of the votes tallied, Weld had won about 9 percent.

No matter the outcome, he vowed to continue on through at least Super Tuesday on March 3.

If he continues to lose as is all but certain Weld said he would likely endorse one of the Democrats, so long as the candidate was not too far to the left, he said. If Senator Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, he said would likely endorse the Libertarian.

Under no circumstances would he support Trump, whom he hoped would have been removed from office after being impeached, he said.

When asked if this would be his last presidential campaign in 2016, he ran as the Libertarian Partys vice presidential candidate he said that was likely.

Then he quickly corrected himself.

Wait, he said, if Im the incumbent, I reserve the right to run for re-election.

David Abel can be reached at dabel@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @davabel.

David Abel can be reached at david.abel@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @davabel.

The rest is here:

In GOP race, Bill Weld harbored no illusions - The Boston Globe

Make no mistake: Former Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) is a Republican.

He was a prominent figure of the Tea Party, he pushed conspiracy theories that former President Barack Obama was from Kenya, and even appeared to promote violent insurrection should then-candidate Donald Trump lose the 2016 presidential race.

Walsh is by no means a moderate, yet he's one of the few Republicans who has publicly and loudly called Trump out over the past couple of years.

He even issued an apology for helping elect Trump last year.

Last summer, Walsh announced that he would be challenging Trump in the 2020 election for President. With Trump's approval rating high within the Republican Party, it was always a longshot and Walsh ended his campaign last week.

That hasn't stopped him from urging voters of all political persuasions to vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who that person ends up being.

Days after Walsh said he'd rather have a socialist than a dictator in the White House, he posted a tweet urging Conservatives to pledge their vote to the yet-to-be-determined Democratic nominee.

Walsh stressed that "ALL OF US" must come together to stop Trump from serving a second term.

Even with Walsh's conventionally far-Right stances, much of his warnings against Trump have fallen on deaf ears among his fellow Republicans, leading him to refer to the party as "a cult."

He recently implored a Republican crowd to reject Trump, saying:

At which point the crowd began cheering and chanting "four more years."

Watch below.

But at least some people seem to be heeding Walsh's plea for Conservatives and Libertarians to take his pledge.

That staunch Republican Joe Walsh went from MAGA to endorsing any Democratic candidate running against Trump illustrated the tumult Trump has imposed on the country after only three years.

It will take a massive voter turnout to have a hope of defeating Donald Trump.

Are you registered to vote? Check your registration here to avoid any surprises on election day.

See original here:

Trump's Former Primary Opponent Just Challenged Conservatives to Support the Democratic Nominee, Whoever It Is - Second Nexus

Rocky Ferrenburg

I was listening to Dave Smiths podcast, Part of the Problem, and they brought up a topic that seems to be a spot of contention for Libertarians: Intellectual Property. Intellectual property is the concept that someone owns an idea and that others cannot reproduce that idea without the owners permission. Being a musician, this is an area where I have thought long and hard, yet I still am not sure if there is an easy answer.

Most people would agree that whoever discovered that 2+2 equals 4 shouldnt be entitled to compensation every time we do basic arithmetic. However, many also believe that if someone writes a book, someone else cant reproduce that work without the original creator being compensated. This creates an issue in the realm of intellectual property.

One solution for this issue is patents. The problem here is that a patent says someone exclusively owns an idea and no one else should be able to recreate it. There are patents that allow for people to be justly compensated for the use of their idea, but not all.

Pharmaceutical companies rely heavily on patents and intellectual property laws. This keeps companies from being able to reverse engineer a drug and provide it to consumers at a lower cost. The second company did not invest the capital to bring the drug to market, so why should they get to swoop in at the last second and steal the idea? Thats where people get all tied up on this topic.

Why can someone patent drugs, books, and machines, but not mathematics or words?

I am a musician, but furthermore, I am a lyricist. I write songs for myself and other people. I would consider my lyrics to be a product of my own creation. Smith would say that they arent because the words are not a scarce resource. My use of the word doesnt affect someone elses ability to use them. So, words are basically in the definition of a public good. However, lets look a little deeper.

If I write a song and put it to music. I would own the lyrics, and maybe even the melody. What I know for sure that I dont own is the chord progression, the tempo, or the key. These things individually I cannot own. What I can do is mix my talents with all of them, and my ability to construct a song, and said song would become the product of my creation.

If this isnt so, then are all books free? Are all songs free? Why would anyone create them? Just so people could come to shows? Just so people would come to hear you speak? If that is the case, then should we throw people out for recording these events?

I certainly wouldnt advocate for throwing someone in jail, but if someone was reprinting your book with their name on it and distributing it, then I would definitely be on your side in a civil suit.

I dont know where the line is drawn. I am not sure that there is a clear-cut answer to this. I know that drugs would be a lot cheaper and a lot more competitive if they didnt have to go through all the bureaucracy. I know that BMI and ASCAP are swindlers that abuse laws for their own benefit. What I do know is that before we jump out and start telling people that their art is worthless and they shouldnt be able to protect it, we need to make sure that we are a lot more aware of what intellectual property actually is.

Rocky Ferrenburg grew up in Anchorage, Alaska, and now lives with his wife and three daughters in Twin Falls, ID. He is a writer, podcaster, and musician. Rocky has also spent time as a political advocate, candidate, and campaign manager. While running his own business, an event services company, Rocky sat on committees for music festivals and has been a talent buyer for concerts. Rocky has five degrees from the College of Southern Idaho, two bachelors degrees from Washington State University, and is currently working on his MS in Applied Economics from Southern New Hampshire University. Rockys true passions lie in writing, music, and politics.

Follow this link:

Can We Own Our Thoughts and Words? - The Libertarian Republic

On Tuesday night in Amarillo, the Amarillo Pioneers candidate forum was the place to be.

At the American Legion Post 54 in downtown Amarillo, over 300 attendees packed the hall to hear the candidates running for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives District 13, Railroad Commission, and a number of local offices. Nine of the Republican candidates running to replace U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Clarendon) attended, as did the three Democratic and one Libertarian hopeful running for the seat.

The event featured introductions from the candidates and questions written from the audience. Len Walker served as the chief moderator for the evening and Brad Torch, Trent Rosser, and Tom Warren also served as moderators at various points.

Local community businesses and organizations generously contributed to the event, including support from Roasters Coffee, Burkett Outdoor Advertising, and more. Eloy Heras also generously donated the use of his microphone system for the event.

We cannot wait until the next forum and we hope to see everyone there.

Continued here:

Feb 12 Feb 12 Candidates Speak at Packed Amarillo Pioneer Forum - The Amarillo Pioneer

POA election doesn't

seek those who speak

The Bella Vista Property Owners Association is conducting an election to elect three directors to the board. There are two things a potential candidate has to do to get accepted. One, he/she has to win the election. Two, the candidate has to sign a form called the Statement of Compliance. It is used as a loyalty oath, which is a pledge of allegiance to abide by the policies of the association (corporation). In other words, the director has signed that he/she will do what they are told to do or the POA hierarchy will remove them and appoint someone who will. We must remember that this is a corporate board and not a people board. This is one reason the board members rarely listen to a member when they are trying to address the board during the public comment segment of the board meetings. The board members have signed a promise to listen to the corporation and not the member.

Immediately after the winners are announced on election night the winners are taken to a side room at Riordan Hall and are told by the POA staff attorney and the POA president that the word "association" does not mean "members." The word "association" is the corporation Cooper Communities Inc. and the POA administration. They go on to say that corporation knows what is best for the future of Bella Vista and if the members had any control they might make a mistake that would be detrimental to the property owners.

If the candidate refuses to sign the compliance form, he/she is immediately not accepted to serve and will be replaced by an appointee who will. This happened to me in my 2006 election. There were two elected board members who signed the oath, but were thrown off the board because they were found guilty of breaking their promise by speaking publicly without the corporations' permission. There were three other elected board members who felt they should be allowed to see the then-CEO's contract before they were forced to sign it. All three resigned in disgust. There were two others that, because they voted contrary to the other seven, were so ostracized that they resigned under duress.

In the real world too many politicians who owe their election to big corporate campaign money tend to listen to the corporations' wishes rather than the people who elected them.

The way our POA board operates is not uncommon in the real world. Most public board and commission members act similarly. Almost any board members or commission members are expected to drink the coffee, munch the peanuts and throw their hands in the air when the COO, CEO or president tell them to. If they want to stay on the board and get re-elected they will never ask any questions or offer any personal opinions. If they do have a different opinion, it is best to stay seated, swallow deeply, blink three times and keep their mouths shut.

Jim Parsons

Bella Vista

In county race, voters

shouldn't rely on 'R'

There are two Republicans running for the open seat of District 7 Justice of The Peace: Doug Farner and Joseph Bollinger. Justices are members of the County Quorum Court and represent the legislative body for the county, much like a city council for a city. Their important powers include: levying of taxes; appropriating public finds for the expenses of the county; establishing the number and compensation of elected officials and county employees; and providing for any service or performance of any function relating to county affairs.

Republicans should be aware that Joseph Bollinger is a former Libertarian who has recently switched parties and now calls himself a Republican. Apparently, his past failed attempt to get elected as a Libertarian prompted this change. I spoke with Mr. Bollinger recently and it is clear to me that his far-right, Libertarian views have not changed. This is not the time for more extremism in government, be it city, county, state or national.

A far better choice for District 7 JP is Doug Farner. Mr. Farner's views and experience in elected city government positions, appointed positions and volunteer activities make him the right candidate to represent mainstream Republican principles in this important county office.

I urge my Republican friends to vote for someone with experience who will work effectively with the entire Quorum Court to move Benton County forward and not vote for someone just because they have an "R" next to their name.

Dave Barfield

Bella Vista

Print Headline: NWA Letters to the Editor

Continued here:

NWA Letters to the Editor - NWAOnline

While public attention was focused on the results of the competitive Democratic primary in New Hampshire, the results of the Republican primary are not worth ignoring. A sort of two-man race developed between incumbent President Donald Trump, and his contender, former Massachusetts Governor William Weld.

Historically, New Hampshire has been the bedrock of fruitless primary challengers. Most significantly, in 1968 Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy won 42% of the vote, scaring the incumbent President Lyndon Johnson into forswearing reelection. In 1992, Pat Buchanan won 37.5% in the Granite state against George H. W. Bush, which predestined the latters defeat in the general election that year.

Bill Welds challenge fell far below that threshold, failing to reach the double digits (9.1%). This is a lower result than both of incumbent President Richard Nixons 1972 primary challengers, conservative Rep. John Ashbrook (9.7%) and liberal Republican Rep. Pete McCloskey (19.8%).

The Fake News Media is looking hard for the Big Democrat Story, but there is nothing too fabulous. Wouldnt a big story be that I got more New Hampshire Primary Votes than any incumbent president, in either party, in the history of that Great State? Not an insignificant fact! tweeted Trump last night.

Weld began hispolitical career in the 1980s, first as U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, and then head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. While in D.C., Weld was one of the Reagan administrations hardline drug warriors, at one point advancing the idea of using the U.S. Air Force to shoot down planes suspected of carrying illegal narcotics.

In 1990, Weld was elected Governor of Massachusetts, and in 1994 he was reelected with 70.9% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in state history. As a supporter of both abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples, Weld was a staple of liberal republicanism in the 1990s. He was the Republican candidate for senate in 1996 but was defeated by incumbent John Kerry. Weld later resigned his governorship in the summer of 1997, after being nominated by President Bill Clinton to be Ambassador to Mexico. His nomination was torpedoed by North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, and he was never confirmed.

After an abortive run for Governor of New York in 2006, Weld reentered national politics in 2016, accepting the vice-presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party on a ticket headed by former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson. Weld, having previously endorsed John Kasich that election year and repeatedly flattering Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, was a controversial pick in liberty-minded circles.

Weld rejoined the Republican Party at the start of 2019, and soon announced his presidential campaign. He engendered controversy when he claimed Donald Trump had committed treason during his phone call to the Ukrainian President, the even that lead to the impeachment imbroglio this past fall. The penalty for treason under the U.S. code is death. Thats the only penalty, Weld proscribed.

The former governor was not perturbed by his showing. Im going to declare that Ive exceeded expectations no matter what, Weld told The Boston Globe yesterday afternoon. Weld received 1.3% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses last week.

Bill Weld has said that after the primary process, hed be happy [to support] any of the centrist Democrats in the general election, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg or former Vice President Joe Biden, who hed vote for in a heartbeat.

Hunter DeRensis is a senior reporter for the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter@HunterDeRensis.

Go here to see the original:

Meet the Man Challenging Donald Trump For the 2020 GOP Presidential Nomination - The National Interest Online

In a provocative yet thoughtful manifesto, economist Tyler Cowen, a major figure in libertarian circles, offers a harsh assessment of his ideological confreres:

Having tracked the libertarian "movement" for much of my life, I believe it is now pretty much hollowed out, at least in terms of flow. One branch split off into Ron Paul-ism and less savory alt right directions, and another, more establishment branch remains out there in force but not really commanding new adherents. For one thing, it doesn't seem that old-style libertarianism can solve or even very well address a number of major problems, most significantly climate change. For another, smart people are on the internet, and the internet seems to encourage synthetic and eclectic views, at least among the smart and curious. Unlike the mass culture of the 1970s, it does not tend to breed "capital L Libertarianism." On top of all that, the out-migration from narrowly libertarian views has been severe, most of all from educated women.

As an antidote, Cowen champions what he calls "State Capacity Libertarianism," which holds that a large, growing government does not necessarily come at the expense of fundamental individual rights, pluralism, and the sort of economic growth that leads to continuously improved living standards. Most contemporary libertarians, he avers, believe that big government and freedom are fundamentally incompatible, to which he basically answers, Look upon Denmark and despair: "Denmark should in fact have a smaller government, but it is still one of the freer and more secure places in the world, at least for Danish citizens albeitnot for everybody."

In many ways, Cowen's post condenses his recent book Stubborn Attachments, in which he argues politics should be organized around respect for individual rights and limited government; policies that encourage long-term, sustainable economic growth; and an acknowledgement that some problems (particularly climate change) need to be addressed at the state rather than individual level. You can listen to a podcast I did with him here or read a condensed interview with him here. It's an excellent book that will challenge readers of all ideological persuasions. There's a ton to disagree with in it, but it's a bold, contrarian challenge to conventional libertarian attitudes, especially the idea that growth in government necessarily diminishes living standards.

I don't intend this post as a point-by-point critique of Cowen's manifesto, whose spirit is on-target but whose specifics are fundamentally mistaken. I think he's right that the internet and the broader diffusion of knowledge encourages ideological eclecticism and the creation of something like mass personalization when it comes to ideology. But this doesn't just work against "capital L Libertarianism." It affects all ideological movements, and it helps explain why the divisions within groups all over the political spectrum (including the Democratic and Republican parties) are becoming ever sharper and harsher. Everywhere around us, coalitions are becoming more tenuous and smaller. (This is not a bad thing, by the way, any more than the creation of new Christian sects in 17th-century England was a bad thing.) Nancy Pelosi's sharpest critics aren't from across the aisle but on her own side of it. Such a flowering of niches is itself libertarian.

Cowen is also misguided in his call for increasing the size, scope, and spending of government. "Our governments cannot address climate change, much improve K-12 education, fix traffic congestion," he writes, attributing such outcomes to "failures of state capacity"both in terms of what the state can dictate and in terms of what it can spend. This is rather imprecise. Whatever your beliefs and preferences might be on a given issue, the scale (and cost) of addressing, say, climate change is massive compared to delivering basic education, and with the latter at least, there's no reason to believe that more state control or dollars will create positive outcomes. More fundamentally, Cowen conflates libertarianism with political and partisan identities, affiliations, and outcomes. I think a better way is to define libertarian less as a noun or even a fixed, rigid political philosophy and more as an adjective or "an outlook that privileges things such as autonomy, open-mindedness, pluralism, tolerance, innovation, and voluntary cooperation over forced participation in as many parts of life as possible." I'd argue that the libertarian movement is far more effective and appealing when it is cast in pre-political and certainly pre-partisan terms.

Be all that as it may, I agree that the libertarian movement is stalled in some profound ways. A strong sense of forward momentumwhat Cowen calls flowamong self-described libertarians has definitely gone missing in the past few years, especially when it comes to national politics (despite the strongest showing ever by a Libertarian presidential nominee in 2016). From the 1990s up through a good chunk of the '00s, there was a general sense that libertarian attitudes, ideas, and policies were, if not ascendant, at least gaining mindshare, a reality that both energized libertarians and worried folks on the right and left. In late 2008, during the depths of the financial crisis and a massive growth of the federal government, Matt Welch and I announced the beginning of the "Libertarian Moment." This, we said, was

an early rough draft version of the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick's glimmering "utopia of utopias." Due to exponential advances in technology, broad-based increases in wealth, the ongoing networking of the world via trade and culture, and the decline of both state and private institutions of repression, never before has it been easier for more individuals to chart their own course and steer their lives by the stars as they see the sky.

Our polemic, later expanded into the book The Declaration of Independents, was as much aspirational as descriptive, but it captured a sense that even as Washington was about to embark on a phenomenal growth spurtcontinued and expanded by the Obama administration in all sorts of ways, from the creation of new entitlements to increases in regulation to expansions of surveillancemany aspects of our lives were improving. As conservatives and liberals went dark and apocalyptic in the face of the economic crisis and stalled-out wars and called for ever greater control over how we live and do business, libertarians brought an optimism, openness, and confidence about the future that suggested a different way forward. By the middle of 2014, The New York Times was even asking on the cover of its weekly magazine, "Has the 'Libertarian Moment Finally Arrived?"

That question was loudly answered in the negative as the bizarre 2016 presidential season got underway and Donald Trump appeared on the horizon like Thanos, blocking out the sun and destroying all that lay before him. By early 2016, George Will was looking upon the race between Trump and Hillary Clinton and declaring that we were in fact not in a libertarian moment but an authoritarian one, regardless of which of those monsters ended up in the White House. In front of 2,000 people gathered for the Students for Liberty's annual international conference, Will told Matt and me:

[Donald Trump] believes that government we have today is not big enough and that particularly the concentration of power not just in Washington but Washington power in the executive branch has not gone far enough.Today, 67 percent of the federal budget is transfer payments.The sky is dark with money going back and forth between client groups served by an administrative state that exists to do very little else but regulate the private sector and distribute income. Where's the libertarian moment fit in here?

With the 2020 election season kicking into high gear, apocalypticism on all sides will only become more intense than it already is. Presidential campaigns especially engender the short-term, elections-are-everything partisan thinking that typically gets in the way of selling libertarian ideas, attitudes, and policies.

Cowen is, I think, mostly right that the libertarian movement is not "really commanding new adherents," including among "educated women." He might add ethnic and racial minorities, too, who have never been particularly strongly represented in the libertarian movement. And, increasingly, younger Americans, who are as likely to have a positive view of socialism as they are of capitalism.

Of course, as I write this, I can think of all sorts of ways that libertarian ideas, policies, and organizations actually speak directly to groups not traditionally thought of libertarian (I recently gave $100 to Feminists for Liberty, a group that bills itself as "anti-sexism & anti-statism, pro-markets & pro-choice.") School choice, drug legalization, criminal justice reform, marriage equality, ending occupational licensing, liberalizing immigration, questioning military intervention, defending free expressionso much of what defines libertarian thinking has a natural constituency among audiences that we have yet to engage as successfully as we should. That sort of outreach, along with constant consideration of how libertarian ideas fit into an ever-changing world, is of course what Reason does on a daily basis.

All of us within the broadly defined libertarian movement need to do better. And in that sense at least, Cowen's manifesto is a welcome spur to redoubling efforts.

Read this article:

The Libertarian Movement Needs a Kick in the Pants - Reason

BY SONYA HERRERADaily Post Staff Writer

A local Libertarian said in a ballot argument for the March election that the Foothill-De Anza Community College District is trying to trick Chinese residents into voting for new taxes by flashing around the number 8.

The number 8 has long been associated with good fortune in Chinese culture. Often companies market products using the number. Thats why certain real estate listings include several 8s, and why other businesses try to get as many 8s in their phone numbers as possible.

Mark Hinkle of Morgan Hill, who regularly writes ballot arguments against tax measures, claims that the college district is using the number 8 to manipulate Chinese voters.

The college district is asking voters on March 3 to approve Measure G, a $898 million bond sale, and Measure H, a $48 parcel tax.

Hinkles co-signer on the ballot argument, Mountain View attorney Gary Wesley, said that he attended a college district board meeting in 2006 when they were discussing a $490.8 million bond measure. He recalled that a board member asked why there was a .8 at the end of the amount. A district employee answered that 8 was considered lucky in Chinese culture, Wesley said.

The 1999 bond measure had been $248 million. This one is $898 million, Wesley said. You will find no other credible explanation for the $898 (million) total proposed for March 3.

District board members did not respond to requests for comment.

Hinkle, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, typically writes ballot arguments against tax increases in every election. The arguments for and against a measure are printed in the Voter Guide thats mailed to residents.

Heres a look at some of the arguments voters will see in the guide prior to the March election.

For Measure G, the college district would borrow $898 million, which would be repaid with a property tax of $160 per $1 million of assessed property value. The amount district property owners would have to repay is estimated at $1.56 billion, which includes principal and interest. The taxes to repay the bonds would continue through 2053-54, according to the districts website. The district says the sale of the bonds would pay for upgrading and repairing classrooms and labs, improving access to buildings for students with disabilities, and repairing plumbing and electrical systems.

Measure H is a parcel tax for the district that would be in place for five years. The tax would cost $48 per year per parcel and would pay for faculty salaries and new programs to help students who are homeless or hungry.

District trustee Patrick Ahrens wrote the arguments for Measure G and H and the rebuttals to the arguments against the measures.

These documents were signed by district trustee Pearl Cheng; student trustees Tiffany Nguyen and Genevieve Kolar; Dudley Andersen, former chair of the districts past bond oversight committee; Foothill student Luis Herrera; former De Anza instructor Harry Price; Dick Henning, founder of Foothill Colleges Celebrity Forum; De Anza instructor Bill Wilson; and resident George Tyson.

Ahrens wrote that Measure G would ensure that the colleges will continue their current classes, and that the colleges have been excellent stewards of taxpayers money. Ahrens wrote that Measure H money cannot be used for administrator salaries or pensions.

Hinkle wrote the arguments against Measures G and H and the rebuttals to the arguments in favor of the measures. He wrote that Measure G is the third bond measure from the district in 20 years, and that if it passes, your grandchildren will still be paying for the debt incurred today.

Hinkle wrote that Measure G would permit the district to sell the bonds in later years, possibly at much higher interest rates, which would more than double what taxpayers would have to repay. Hinkle said that while enrollment at the districts two colleges has dropped, the number of retiring employees has risen. Hinkle said that the pension liabilities and other benefits owed to these district retirees will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and said that as written, Measure H allows the district to spend the money however it wants.

Measure T is a bond measure for Mountain View Whisman School District. The district would borrow $259 million, which would be repaid through a $300 tax per $1 million of assessed property value. The estimated total repayment amount is about $538 million, and the estimated revenue from the tax is $18.6 million each year. The district says the sale of the bonds would pay for repairing, upgrading and building new facilities and classrooms.

The argument in favor of Measure T and the rebuttal to the argument against Measure T were written by Cleave Frink, a member of the districts bond oversight committee for Measure G, which was passed in 2012. The argument in favor was signed by Realtor Aileen La Bouff; teacher Margaret Poor; district trustee Tamara Wilson; resident William Lambert; financial planner Niki Theil; Realtor Nancy Stuhr; Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District trustee Fiona Walter; retired fire chief Dale Kuersten; and teacher Gail Lee.

Frink wrote that Measure T would ensure that schools in the district would have modern classrooms, science labs and computer systems, and provide housing for teachers and district employees. Frink pointed out that Hinkle, the lone opponent to Measure T, doesnt live in Mountain View.

The argument against Measure T and the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure T were written by Hinkle, who said the bond is a blank check, and that the interest rate could be much higher and result in a higher repayment amount.

Measure D would change the Mountain View rent control law voters passed in 2016. The measure would, among other things, eliminate the current limit on rent increases, which is the consumer price index, and replace it with a 4% ceiling.

The argument for Measure D and the rebuttal to the argument against Measure D were written by multiple authors, including Frink and Fiona Walter; city council members John McAlister, Margaret Abe-Koga and Chris Clark; Environmental Planning Commissioner William Cranston; former Mountain View Whisman School board member Christopher Chiang; Greg Cooper, president of Mountain View Professional Firefighters Local 1965; Mountain View Whisman School District trustee Jose Gutierrez Jr.; and renter LJ Gunson III.

In the ballot argument, they said that Measure D allows landlords to fix up older apartments rather than tear them down. The group wrote that Measure D lowers rent increases from 5% to 4% per year, and that those increases arent automatic. They said courts have ruled that the citys current law doesnt cover mobile homes, and that Measure D allows city council to enact mobile home renter protections next year.

The argument against Measure D and the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure D were also written by multiple authors, including Sally Lieber, former mayor and state Assemblywoman; Tamara Wilson, Mountain View Whisman School District trustee; resident Alex Nunez; Trey Bornmann, president of Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance; Anthony Chang, member of Mountain View Homeowners Against Displacement; and former mayor Pat Showalter.

They wrote that Measure D would result in higher rents and more renters being displaced from their homes.

The group said that Measure D does not set new safety rules, and that the measure allows landlords to raise the rent up to 10% for non-safety property upgrades. They added that city council is only studying protections for mobile home renters next year, and that this study session does not guarantee protections for mobile home renters.

Read the original post:

Libertarian says college district is using the number 8 to influence Chinese voters - The Daily Post

9. State Capacity Libertarians are more likely to have positive views of infrastructure, science subsidies, nuclear power (requires state support!), and space programs than are mainstream libertarians or modern Democrats. Modern Democrats often claim to favor those items, and sincerely in my view, but de facto they are very willing to sacrifice them for redistribution, egalitarian and fairness concerns, mood affiliation, and serving traditional Democratic interest groups. For instance, modern Democrats have run New York for some time now, and theyve done a terrible job building and fixing things. Nor are Democrats doing much to boost nuclear power as a partial solution to climate change, if anything the contrary.

10. State Capacity Libertarianism has no problem endorsing higher quality government and governance, whereas traditional libertarianism is more likely to embrace or at least be wishy-washy toward small, corrupt regimes, due to some of the residual liberties they leave behind.

11. State Capacity Libertarianism is not non-interventionist in foreign policy, as it believes in strong alliances with other relatively free nations, when feasible. That said, the usual libertarian problems of intervention because government makes a lot of mistakes bar still should be applied to specific military actions. But the alliances can be hugely beneficial, as illustrated by much of 20th century foreign policy and today much of Asia which still relies on Pax Americana.

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/what-libertarianism-has-become-and-will-become-state-capacity-libertarianism.html

Continue reading here:

What libertarianism has become and will become State Capacity Libertarianism - Hot Air

Elections will dominate 2020, and it wont be long before Catawba County residents will be able to cast their ballots.

Primary elections will be held on March 3, with early voting set for February.

Heres an overview of the 2020 primaries:

What races will have primaries this year?

For federal offices, there will be Democratic and Republican primaries for president and U.S. Senate.

The Libertarian and Constitution parties will also have primaries for president.

The race for the 10th U.S. Congressional District, currently represented by Republican Patrick McHenry, will have a Republican primary while the Fifth Congressional District represented by Republican Virginia Foxx will have a Democratic primary.

There will be Democratic and Republican primaries for governor, lieutenant governor, auditor and superintendent of public instruction.

The races for attorney general, insurance commissioner, labor commissioner and secretary of state will only have a Republican primary.

The races for agriculture commissioner and treasurer will only have a Democratic primary.

There will also be a Republican primary in N.C. Senate District 42.

There will be no primaries for either of the N.C. House seats in Catawba County because only one Republican and one Democrat are running in each of the two races.

Locally, the races for Catawba County commissioner and register of deeds will have Republican primaries.

When will the polls be open?

Early voting will run from Feb. 13 through Feb. 29.

The polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturdays and 1-5 p.m. on Sundays.

The Newton Main Library, Highland Recreation Center, Conover Station, Southwest Library and Sherrills Ford-Terrell Library will be the early-voting sites.

Catawba County residents are permitted to vote at any of the five sites, regardless of where they live.

On the March 3 primary day, polls will be open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Residents voting on March 3 must vote at their assigned polling places.

Who can vote in which primaries?

The primaries residents will be able to vote in will depend on their party affiliation.

To vote in the Republican, Democratic or Libertarian primaries, a resident must either be registered with the party or be registered as unaffiliated.

The Constitution Party only allows voters registered with the party to vote in its primaries.

Will I have to show ID to vote?

Residents will not have to show ID during the primary as a result of a court ruling blocking the states voter ID law.

N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein said the state will not appeal the decision until after the primary, according to an Associated Press report.

The voter ID law was approved by voters in 2018 and was set to go into effect this year.

What is the deadline for voter registration?

Residents wishing to vote on March 3 must be registered by Feb. 7.

Same-day registration will be available during the early-voting period. Residents must show some form of identification such as a drivers license or copies of government or financial documents showing a persons name and address.

Residents may register by printing off, filling out and returning the registration forms available for download at catawbacountync.gov/county-services/elections/voter-registration.

Forms are also available at public libraries, public high schools and admissions offices of colleges.

See the original post here:

A look ahead to the 2020 elections: Answers to some of the big questions - Hickory Daily Record

In 2016, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld received the Libertarian Partys vice-presidential nomination. This year, having returned to the Republican Party, Weld is challenging President Donald Trump for the Republican Partys presidential nomination.

Many people would assume that Weld would be criticizing Trump for ordering this weekskillingin Iraq of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. This assumption would make sense given the libertarian position favoring nonintervention overseas.

However, Weld has longfavoredmany policies far afield from libertarianism, including an interventionist foreign policy. True to form, Welds milk-toast response to Trumps assassination order in no way challenges the order itself or any aspect of the US governments ongoing intervention in Iraq, the Middle East, or anywhere in the world. Indeed, Welds response is evenblasregarding whether a US war with Iran is a good or bad thing.

Weld presented his response in two Friday Twitter posts. First, Weldwrote:

Soleimani was evil. Of that, there is no doubt. While there are real questions to be asked about this Administrations strategic approach toward Iran, today, our focus MUST be on the safety & security of our fellow Americans standing in harms way at a very dangerous moment.

Weld then followed up with thistweet:

Right or wrong, the United States is closer to war with Iran than we have been in decades. How we got here is a conversation for another day. Where we go from here? That is a question that demands clear and stable leadership.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Please Donate Today Did you enjoy this article? Then please consider donating today to ensure that Eurasia Review can continue to be able to provide similar content.

Read more:

Bill Weld: Ho-Hum, Donald Trump Ordered The Assassination Of Qassem Suleimani OpEd - Eurasia Review

Gene Strandberg, Gilpin County. Fred Koch, father of Charles and David, was a founding member of the John Birch Society, a right-fringe group that spouted conspiracy theories about communist subversion plots in the U.S. These two sons would organize and lead the real subversion one generation later.

Fred helped Stalins engineers build 15 oil refineries, establishing Russias oil industry. The American businessman and Nazi sympathizer William Rhodes Davis hired Winkler-Koch Engineering to supply the plans and oversee construction of a huge oil refinery in Hitlers Germany, one of the few in Germany that could produce high octane fuel for fighter planes.

The John Birch Society tried to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren, after SCOTUS desegregated public schools. In 1968 Fred wanted a Birch Society member to run for President on a platform of segregation and the abolition of all income taxes.

In 1966 Charles was an executive and trustee of the Freedom School, founded in 1956 in Larkspur, Colorado by Robert LeFevre, who promoted the abolition of the state. The school opposed anti-poverty programs, Medicare, and forced integration. It taught that robber barons were heroes, taxes were theft, slavery was less evil than a military draft, and the Bill of Rights should consist of only one right, the right to own property.

According to a 1982 Bill Koch deposition, Charles led his brothers David and Bill in an attempt to blackmail his brother Fred out of his share of the family business by threatening to tell their father that Fred was gay, resulting in Freds disinheritance. The plot failed, because Fred wasnt gay, and he wouldnt give in. Exposing his character, Charles gave Fred so little notice of their mothers death that Fred could not get home in time for her funeral.

In 1974 Charles told a group of businessmen, The development of a well-financed cadre of sound proponents of the free enterprise philosophy is the most critical need facing us today. In 1976 the Center for Libertarian Studies was founded with $65,000 from Charles Koch. At a Center conference Charles suggested the movement attract young people because, that was the only group open to a radically different social philosophy. Charles was supported by Leonard Liggio, a libertarian historian with the Kochs Institute for Humane Studies from 1974-1998. He lauded the Nazis youth movement and said libertarians should organize university students to create group identity.

Former Birch Society member George Pearson presented a paper that was adopted for their higher education indoctrination grants. It proposed funding private institutions within universities, where they could influence who would be teaching and what would be taught. Pearson said it would be essential to use ambiguous and misleading names and hide the programs true agenda.

In a 1978 article for Libertarian Review, Charles wrote, Ideas do not spread by themselves; they spread only through people, which means we need a movement. Our movement must destroy the current statist paradigm.

In 1980 they tried through election, with David Koch as the Libertarian candidate for Vice-President. The platform called for the abolition of: the Federal Election Commission and all campaign finance laws; Medicare, Medicaid and all other government health care programs; Social Security; all income taxes and corporate taxes; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Central Intelligence Agency; the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; minimum wage laws; child labor laws; seat belt laws; public schools and all welfare programs for the poor. The parallel with ALEC and the current Republican goals is not coincidental.

Even arch-conservative William F. Buckley called their views anarcho-totalitarianism. They got only 1% of the vote, so they decided infiltrating universities, establishing think tanks, and co-opting the Republican Party was a better way to destroy the prevalent statist paradigm.

In the 1980s their disciple Richard Fink wrote The Structure of Social Change, which Fink described as a three-phase takeover of American politics. Phase 1 is an investment in academia, where the ideas to achieve their goals would be born.

Phase 2 is the establishment of think tanks to turn the ideas into palatable policies.

Phase 3 is forming front groups (promoted as grassroots), to influence officeholders to enact the policies.

If the Kochs were truly free market libertarians, they would have opposed the government bailout during the financial collapse, which the House of Representatives did reject. After the stock market dropped 777 points in one day, the Kochs and their think tank, Americans for Prosperity, scrapped ideology in favor of money. Two days later a list of conservative groups now supporting the bailout was shown to Republican legislators. The Senate soon passed TARP with overwhelming bipartisan support.

By 2009 Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas were speakers at the Koch donor summits, which are secretive to the point of paranoia. Attendees are told to destroy all document copies, not to post any related information online, and to keep notes and materials secure. Names of guests and agendas are kept secret, sign up is done through Koch staff, not resort staff, name tags are required, all electronic devices are confiscated before sessions, and white-noise emitting loudspeakers are placed facing outward to defeat any eavesdropping attempts. One would think they had something to hide. Sources include politico.com January 2016, the New Yorker August 30, 2010, and prwatch.org January, 2016

Next time: secret money

(Originally published in the December 5, 2019, print edition of The Mountain-Ear.)

Read more from the original source:

Meet the Kochs - The Mountain -Ear

When Dominic Cummings arrived in Downing Street, some of his new colleagues were puzzled by one of his mantras: Get Brexit done, then Arpa. Now, perhaps, they have some idea of what that meant. On 2 January, Cummings published on his blog the wackiest job proposals to emerge from a government since the emperor Caligula made his horse a consul.

The ad took the form of a long post under the heading Were hiring data scientists, project managers, policy experts, assorted weirdos, included a reading list of arcane academic papers that applicants were expected to read and digest and declared that applications from super-talented weirdos would be especially welcome. They should assemble a one-page letter, attach a CV and send it to ideasfornumber10@gmail.com. (Yes, thats @gmail.com.)

It was clear that nobody from HR was involved in composing this call for clever young things. Alerting applicants to the riskiness of employment by him, Cummings writes: Ill bin you within weeks if you dont fit dont complain later because I made it clear now.

The ad provoked predictable outrage and even the odd parody. The most interesting thing about it, though, is its revelations of what moves the man who is now the worlds most senior technocrat. The Arpa in his mantra, for example, is classic Cummings, because the Pentagons Advanced Research Projects Agency (now Darpa) is one of his inspirational models. It was set up in 1958 as part of Americas response to the Soviet space satellite programme and was charged with generating and executing research and development projects to expand the frontiers of technology and science.

Arpa, as it was then known, was the agency that funded the arpanet, the precursor to the internet, and is famous for the lavishness of its funding, the speed with which it operates and its decisiveness. When Bob Taylor had the idea of funding the arpanet, for example, it took him just 20 minutes to get his boss to agree to it. Other Cummings inspirations are the Manhattan Project, which built the first atomic bomb, and the Apollo mission, which first put men on the moon.

Note that all these inspirational projects have some interesting things in common: no politics, no bureaucratic processes and no legal niceties. Which is exactly how Cummings likes things to be.

One of Cummingss abiding obsessions over the past few years (often aired on his blog) is his conviction that SW1 his term for the entire government machine and its political masters is totally unfit for purpose in the modern era. In a way, his job ad is a 3,000-word articulation of this belief. SW1, as he sees it, is scientifically and technologically illiterate, stuffed with Oxbridge humanities graduates, generalists, amateurs, etc. When mounted on this particular hobbyhorse, Cummings sounds like CP Snow on speed.

I have some sympathy with these views as do some of the younger civil servants I meet. The problem is that the thinking implicit in Cummingss blog post is flawed in two ways. The first is that he has swallowed the Silicon Valley delusion that data (and data science) provide the key to life, the universe and everything. The second is that his recruitment wheeze is strategically naive. The idea that the huge bureaucratic machine of the British state can be transformed by the injection of a cadre of disruptive young geniuses is, to put it mildly, bonkers. The civil service has a powerful immune system for rejecting outsiders and Cummingss stated ambition that his new hires will make him redundant in a year or two is therefore daft. What he has are ideas when what he needs is a strategy.

Which is odd, because his main claim to fame from the Vote Leave campaign and Johnsons election victory is as a gifted strategist. Deep down, Cummings is what the economist Tyler Cowen calls a state capacity libertarian. This sounds like an oxymoron (a libertarian who believes in a strong state), but what it appears to involve is a conviction about the need for a capable state. In this regard, writes Cowen, sometimes the problem is too much government, sometimes the problem is not enough government. Most often, the problem is the wrong sort of government.

If this is indeed what Cummings believes (and much of his derisive blogging about the stupidity and incapacity of SW1 suggests that it is), then he needs a more sustained strategy to make the British state more capable of handling the challenges of governing a 21st-century society. In other words, a state that would never have screwed up on a universal credit scale.

In some ways, Cummings is his own worst enemy (though David Cameron might retort: Not while Im around). Many people are repelled by the way he interweaves radical insights with what looks like vulgar abuse. He mixes understanding with wacky afterthoughts and lets his compulsive autodidactism run away with him.

But he also has an acute sense (which most Brexiters seem to lack) that a UK outside the EU will need to become a much more capable and creative state if it is to escape becoming either a gigantic imitation of Singapore or the sandpit for private equity envisaged by Jacob Rees-Mogg and his cronies. Given Cummingss role in Number 10, and the elective dictatorship bestowed on his master by the rackety British constitution, he has a real opportunity to do some good. Lets hope he takes it.

John Naughton writes the Networker column for Observer New Review

More here:

Work for Dominic Cummings at your peril, but his take on the states flaws is not without merit - The Guardian

Here is news you probably cant use: a new Texas Law Review analysis by University of Chicago law professor William Baude concludesthat Justice Hugo Black, who served on the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971, was unconstitutionally appointed.

The relevant text is the Constitutions Article I, Section 6, which says No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.

At the time of his appointment Black was serving as a senator from Alabamaas part of a Congress that had enacted new retirement benefits for Justices, and while his backers argued that the clause did not apply to bar his nomination, Baude concludes that it probably did. One litigant before the high court challenged Blacks right to serve, but the Court chose to sidestep the merits of that claim by ruling against its standing, and the controversydied.

All of this might seem purely academic. At this remove there would be no way to unscramble the legal omelet as to Blacks jurisprudential contributions, even were there a will. (Despite an unpromising start, the Alabaman eventually showed a libertarian streak on many Bill of Rights issues.)

But the issue is not quite so remote as that, because more than a few contemporary commentators have flirted in some cases more than flirted with claims that the makeup of the present Supreme Court is illegitimate.

After the Senate leadership refused to hold hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, the editorial board of the New York Times repeatedly declared the seat of the late Justice Scalia to have been stolen, and then-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said of eventual nominee Neil Gorsuch that hes not there properly.

The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy brought renewed attack, with former Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned and other high-profile figures taking a similar line.

Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky raised the ante with this remarkable assertion in The American Prospect: each of the five conservative justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh or someone like him (emphasis added) came on to the Court in a manner that lacks legitimacy. Perhaps at some point it will lead to open defiance of the Court.

Other commentators were happy to take up the exciting theme that future Court opinions written by, or decided by the votes of, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and perhaps other Justices might meet with open defiance or resistance from a future Democratic president, from state officials, or from people marching in the streets.

What can the Supreme Court do? Send its tiny police force to storm the White House? wrote Mark Joseph Stern at Slate. Libertarian-minded law professor Ilya Somin, who does not welcome the efforts to de-legitimize the Court or promote defiance of its rulings, nonetheless found them worth taking seriously enough to analyze at length last year.

Baudes research may provide a bit of reassurance in this respect. The challenge to the legitimacy of Blacks seat fizzled in part because it gained little headway with the public, but much more because the Courts other Justices welcomed Black aboard.

Most of the scenarios in which triumphant Democrats in 2021 or 2022 defy Supreme Court rulings are difficult to reconcile with the reality that the Courts liberal Justices have, to all appearances, been entirely content to regard Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as legitimate colleagues, and would, themselves, neither counsel nor welcome defiance of Court rulings. As I wrote last year, "the federal courts are not as polarized and tribal as much of the higher political class and punditry at nomination time."

Baude puts it this way at the conclusion of his article: the real source of constitutional settlement in our system is not always judicial decision, but sometimes sheer practice.

Here is the original post:

Disputed Appointments and the Supreme Court's Legitimacy, in 1937 and Today - Cato Institute