How Has Liberalism Impacted Libertarianism? Being Libertarian Throughout modern politics, liberalism and conservatism have dominated and overshadowed other philosophies. However, the dynamic of libertarianism and liberalism is rarely discussed. Despite common misconceptions, these two ideologies are not similar ... |
See the original post here:
How Has Liberalism Impacted Libertarianism? - Being Libertarian
United Nations humanitarian chief Stephen OBrien declared that the world is facing its greatest humanitarian crisis since 1945.
With more than 20 million people facing starvation and famine in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, OBrien is pleading for help in order to avoid catastrophe.
Without a global humanitarian effort,it is likely that people will simply starve to death, and that many more will suffer and die from disease.
In his statement to the UN Security Council on Friday, OBrien called for a collective global effort to provide aid to the people involved. Below is an excerpt of that statement:
We stand at a critical point in history. Already at the beginning of the year we are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations. Now, more than 20 million people across four countries face starvation and famine. Without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death. Many more will suffer and die from disease. Children stunted and out of school. Livelihoods, futures and hope will be lost. Communities resilience rapidly wilting away. Development gains reversed. Many will be displaced and will continue to move in search for survival, creating ever more instability across entire regions.
Each country listed above suffers from very different circumstances.
In Yemen, according to BBC, a majority of 14.1 million people are facing famine while the country is simultaneously embroiled in a vicious civil war.
Nigeria has been fighting against the terrorist militant organization Boko Haram, which has killed 15,000, and displaced more than 2 million Nigerians from their homes. The extent of Nigerias famine wasnt known until recently, as studies of its internal problems are difficult to undertake due to the military conflict with Boko Haram.
In South Sudan, the UN believes that 40% of the population 4.9 million people require food and nutritional assistance, with 100,000 of directly facing starvation.
Weather patterns attributed toEl Nio in Somalia have killed off livestock and crops, leaving 6.2 million people in urgent need of assistance. Six years ago the most recent Somalian famine the death toll was almost 260,000 people.
Photo Credit: UNICEF
This post was written by Nicholas Amato.
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.
Nicholas Amato is the News Editor at Being Libertarian. Hes an undergraduate student at San Jose State University, majoring in political science and minoring in journalism.
Like Loading...
Read the original here:
UN Declares World's Greatest Humanitarian Crisis Since 1945 - Being Libertarian
Definition of libertarian: 1) an advocate of the doctrine of free will. 2) A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, especially of thought and action.
Ladies and gentleman there you have it, straight from Merriam-Webster. It is with a sad heart that I write this article, but I feel I must. Many of us liberty minded people need to be reminded of what and we stand for.
Libertarianism is non-aggressive. We dont steal, we dont bomb, and we dont forcefully impose our will on others. We are the only political group that can honestly say we support real liberty. I use the word group instead of party, because you dont need to support a party to support a principle. We can support a member of any party, or an independent. It is principle that matters. That same core principle, called non-aggression, is at the heart of every stance we take. While we make jokes about the N.A.P. and endlessly debate about how it applies to certain issues, on most issues it is quite clear.
So why is it, that some libertarians are so supportive of Trump? Sure, the TPP exit was a solid win for liberty, and the repeal of the ACA sounds great. Hell, Trump even supports an audit of the Federal Reserve. There is more too, like his Department of Education appointee. In fact, if you cherry pick certain issues he doesnt sound half bad. However, with that logic I can make any president or politician a libertarian. Small government is only a part of what libertarianism is about.
Some libertarian social media campaigns have even started using slogans like Are you tired of winning yet? when they post about these supposed victories that have come out of Trumps administration. But lets make something clear, we have not won anything at all.
By saying we have, you are further discrediting the libertarian movement and reinforcing the myth that we are pothead republicans. To be brutally honest, many of us are acting like that is true.
Authoritarian government, by nature, violates the core principle of libertarianism. Donald Trump is authoritarian, and there is no argument against that which holds any merit. That does not mean we cant give him some credit where it is due. Reducing regulations and government power is good. A handful of good things however is not winning.
By saying Trump is the most libertarian president ever, you are doing serious damage to the message that we are finally starting to get out.
Lets not lose sight of the core principles we stand for, or throw them away altogether. Dont sit back and talk about how you are happy with Trump. Not when he supports civil asset forfeiture, or appoints someone like Jeff Sessions. Dont talk up the same guy who already is dropping bombs, or the guy who appointed Mike Pompeo to head the CIA.
The conservative Trump wants to spend 20 billion dollars on a wall, rather than fix the issues that caused illegal immigration to be the problem it is. Isnt more government to fix government problems one of the things that Libertarians are against? How does this not qualify?
We should have the same outrage now that we had with Obama. You can make the argument that it is not as bad, but it really is no different. Authoritarian government is still authoritarian government. We are liberty minded, or at least we claim to be. Libertarianism and authoritarianism are polar opposites of each other.
It is almost scary how fast things went downhill. How can we lose sight of things so fast?
We complain about the inability for government to maintain roads, but expect them to maintain a wall? The Federal government cant even maintain the current fence that spans only a fraction of the border. Is eminent domain going to suddenly going to be acceptable when the construction of the wall begins, or will we still care about property rights?
How did we go from calling Edward Snowden a hero, to supporting someone who put an advocate of spying programs in charge of the CIA? How did we go from pointing out every flaw in the left, to ignoring flaws in the right? We are starting to ignore facts and issues that are hurting our cause, showing blind support to an authoritarian, and that makes us just as bad as the authoritarian regime.
To not stand up to injustice, is just as bad as causing injustice.
Maybe our memory is also a problem. We seem to have forgotten the support Trump has given to the progressive left, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, from 1989-2010 he donated over $150,000 more to Democrats than he did to Republicans. Curiously that changed before he announced a potential run for the white house in 2011. Suddenly his donations went mainly to Republicans. Those Democrat donations included Hillary Clinton, who he swore would be in jail if he won, yet last I checked she is roaming free.
His other actions since the election have already proven to be contradictory to his campaign promises as well. I am still waiting for a big Ed McMahon style check for the price of the wall to be sent from Mexico. Instead, we will pay for it with a price increase in Mexicos products. Its okay though, because somehow we all decided that taxation isnt theft anymore and that taxes on companies arent passed onto the consumer, foreign or not. The laws of economics have been suspended so that the almighty Trump can be praised by libertarians for implementing a tax.
Perhaps it is time to reevaluate what being a libertarian actually means. Is it small authoritarian government or is it non-aggression and personal liberty. Are we suddenly a mix of left and right ideas, or are we really something different?
With all of the infighting and drama stirred up in Libertarian groups, we certainly are not acting like the logical and rational people we claim to be.
Like Loading...
Read this article:
Donald Trump Is No Libertarian - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
I have had to undergo a great deal of rethinking on all of this this year [now] I want to shut down low-skill immigration for a while, Charles Murray told a D.C. event hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
The thing that has gotten to me over this year has been the very simple idea that the citizens of a nation owe something to each other that is over and above our general obligation to other human beings outside the United States, Murray said Sept. 26.
A temporary end to low-skill immigration will allow a national test of various proposals to help the many Americans at the bottom end of the economic scale, Murray said. For example, amid high immigration, several million Americans prime age employable men are not even trying to work, at great long-term cost to themselves and society.
Once low-skilled immigration is ended, society may react in favorable directions to help lower-end Americans workers, he said. For example, the girlfriends of young men will be better able to prod their boyfriends into taking low-skill, low-paid jobs if their employers cant hire illegals, Murray said.
But Murray says he only wants a temporary moratorium on low-skill immigration in case the new policy proves counterproductive. I want to shut if down for a while because it may not work [currently] we will have no good way of knowing how employers will respond until the spigot is cut off, he said.
Murray is one of the most influential libertarian and conservative intellectuals in Washington D.C. His work helped create momentum for welfare reform in the 1990s, and hes now focusing attention on the widening gap between poor and wealthy Americans His 2012 book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, has publicized the declining situation of low-skilled white workers.
American has been exceptional because Americans dont want to see their society divided by social and economic classes, Murray said Monday. The term American Exceptionalism came from Europeans visiting in 1800s [who saw that Americans] all wanting to see themselves as part of the same class, he said.
We need to reconstruct an American society in which people are part of one brotherhood, sisterhood, he said. In the recent past, the U.S. did have a sense of egalitarian equality, he said. It was never perfect, but but God, we did get a lot closer than any other society, he said, adding I want in to live in [that] America.
Murrays call for a halt to low-skill immigration comes as a prestigious think-tank in D.C. admitted that each low-skill migrant costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Immigrants alsoshift roughly $500 billion wages from white-collar and blue-collar Americans to employers and investors, according to the Sept. 22 report issued by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
Each year, four million Americans turn 18 and begin looking for jobs. But the federal government also imports roughly 2 million foreign workers, including legal and illegal immigrants, refugees, temporary guest-workers and asylum seekers. More than 50 percent of the annual inflow of workers are lower-skilled.
Restrictions on low-skill immigration is an idea whose time has come, and will be recognized by ambitious Democratic and Republican politicians, he said. There is a sea-change in the [nations] mood, he said.
Visit link:
Libertarian Author Charles Murray Calls for Pause in Low ...
STAUNTON Libertarian Will Hammer will take another crack at the House of Delegates 20 District seat this fall. The lifelong Staunton resident announced his candidacy on Friday evening, taking aim at the controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline, and advocating for marijuana legalization.
The incumbent, Del. Richard Dickie Bell, R-Staunton, has held the seat since 2010. He easily won election in 2009, and has cruised in his three successive bids, winning at least 70 percent of the vote each time.
Hammer will try to break Bells grip on the seat in the November election this year, but he will likely have an uphill climb to do it. He polled 24 percent of the vote in 2015, a respectable showing for a third-party candidate, though he was also the only challenger on the ballot that year. The Democratic Party did not put up a candidate against Bell in 2015.
Hammer hopes to capitalize on voters frustration with incumbents from both parties, something that helped propel outsider Donald Trump to the presidency last year. While the rhetoric from the 2016 campaign has cooled somewhat, still-simmering skepticism from the electorate could open the door for a third-party candidate or independent in local and state races this fall, analysts say.
I believe that my strong showing in 2015 and the growing distrust and distaste for the two major parties, specifically incumbents, represents a great opportunity to go to Richmond as a third-party candidate, Hammer said in a press release.
He also hopes the controversy of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline will buoy his chances this year. Property rights a key issue for the Libertarian Party has been one of the defining issues in protests against the pipeline.
I will fight against the Dominion pipeline because property rights are sacred, Hammer said, referring to the company heading up the effort to build the conduit.
In addition, he vows to end gerrymandering and corruption, and to bring transparency to Richmond, if elected. Gun rights and marijuana legalization are also planks on his platform. While the former will no doubt play well in the conservative district, particularly in its more rural precincts, the latter may turn some hard-line law-and-order voters, especially senior citizens, off from his candidacy.
But Hammer sees legalizing marijuana as an economic issue, more than anything else.
[It] will reduce government expenditure and create a booming new industry, which means thousands of jobs, he said in the release.
A 2009 graduate of Hampden-Sydney College, Hammer describes himself as an entrepreneur and libertarian activist.
He was awarded the Patrick Henry Award by the Libertarian Party in 2016 for the campaign he waged a year earlier against Bell, in which Hammer raised the profile of libertarian issues.
If you are tired of business as usual and the duopoly of the Republicans and Democrats, Hammer said, join me and lets seriously drain the swamp known as Richmond.
See original here:
Anti-pipeline, pro-marijuana Libertarian announces bid for House seat - The Daily Progress
The first of what may eventually be multiple Libertarian candidates for governor has stepped up.
Jason Carrier, whose candidacy was first noted by the Virginia Public Access Project,is collecting signatures to get on the ballot.
Libertarian Party of Virginia Chair Bo Brown confirmed his candidacy, saying the party is talking to several potential candidates and that Carrier is the first to decide he'll run.
"He's a great guy," Brown said. "He's got a military background."
Carrier's Facebook page indicates he's sent petition packets to volunteersexpected to help him get the 10,000 signatures he'll need to be on the ballot.
Brown said theparty expects to hold a convention later this year to nominate its slate of candidates, but a date has not been set. The party will start helping candidates gather signatures before then, though, he said, to get a jump on the process.
Go here to read the rest:
Libertarian gets into Virginia governor's race - Daily Press (blog)
WAYNESBORO Libertarian Will Hammer will take another crack at the House of Delegates 20th District seat this fall.
The incumbent, Del. Richard Dickie Bell, R-Staunton, has held the seat since 2010. He easily won election in 2009 and has cruised in his three successive bids, winning at least 70 percent of the vote each time.
Hammer will try to break Bells grip on the seat in the November election this year, but the Staunton resident likely will have an uphill climb once again. He got 24 percent of the vote in 2015 as a third-party candidate, and there was no Democratic challenger.
I believe that my strong showing in 2015 and the growing distrust and distaste for the two major parties, specifically incumbents, represents a great opportunity to go to Richmond as a third-party candidate, Hammer said in a news release Friday night.
He also hopes that the controversy over the Atlantic Coast Pipeline will buoy his chances this year. Property rights a key issue for the Libertarian Party has been one of the defining issues in protests against the pipeline.
In addition, he vows to end gerrymandering and corruption, and to bring transparency to Richmond, if elected. Gun rights and marijuana legalization also are planks on his platform.
A 2009 graduate of Hampden-Sydney College, Hammer describes himself as an entrepreneur and Libertarian activist.
Visit link:
Libertarian announces bid for 20th District House seat - The Daily Progress
A famous political commentator once compared getting a consensus among libertarians to herding cats, he wasnt wrong.
Those who identify as libertarians range from the classical liberals (in the mold of our Founding Fathers) to those libertines who simply wish for marijuana and maybe a few other recreational drugs to be legalized (you know who you are).
However, there are some commonalities among libertarians. For instance, libertarians tend to fall within the isolationist range of the foreign policy spectrum. There really arent many who identify as libertarians, who believe that the United States should be the world police; the ones who need to solve every crisis or topple every corrupt regime out there. There is a big world outside of the United States and, while I am certainly not advocating policing the world, I would like to draw attention to our relationship with one country Israel and why that relationship is important.
1. Israel is our ally. Normally, a country like ours treats their allies well and their enemies very cautiously, but this policy flew out the window during the two terms of President Obama.
President Obama took office, returned a gift (a bust of Winston Churchill) from our closest ally, Great Britain, and gave Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu the cold shoulder; going so far as to allow (by our silence) the United Nations to pass a sanction against Israel something no previous president would have ever allowed.
All this happened while he was touring the world and apologizing for Americas sins while giving the red carpet treatment to those who hate us (like the Iranian mullahs).
Granted, the UN Security Council has a closer resemblance to the Star Wars bar scene than a serious, powerful organization; but it is still something that would never have been allowed before.
Israel is a valuable ally in the middle east and has supplied us with valuable intelligence in our fight to protect our country from more terrorist attacks.
2. Israel is a stable democracy. Israel is the only stable democracy in a region ruled by tyrants or militants.
While I dont think it is Americas place to dictate policy to other countries, it is smart to support like-minded countries. Yes, Israel is a bit too socialist for me, but its an absolute paradise compared to the rest of the region.
Judaism is obviously the majority religion of that country, but unlike the other countries in the region, Israel allows those of minority religions (like Christians) to worship freely, without fear of punishment or death. Im sure the Coptic Christians in Egypt would have appreciated that freedom, or the Yazidis in Iraq after ISIS took over.
Israel is also not ruled by a dictator, but by a deliberative body of a multi-housed government. Its stability is welcoming to investors and businesses, all to the enrichment of its people.
3. Israel is hated by our enemies, both foreign and domestic. We have common enemies whether we like it or not. Islamic terrorists hate us because of who we are infidels!
To them, Israel is the little Satan and the United States is the great Satan.
Unfortunately for Israel, they are surrounded by those who use the catch phrase Jews to the sea more often than Americans say bless you to someone who sneezes and their enemies mean it!
The threat isnt going away on its own either, no matter how much we try to ignore or appease those who would do us harm.
As for domestic enemies, those in the United States who wish for the demise of our country for ideological reasons (that it was founded by racists, guilty of sexism, and rich by stealing the resources of the world, etc.) also dislike Israel for the same reasons. To them, Israelis are the oppressors; stealing the land and resources of the poor, downtrodden Arabs. And theyre probably guilty of bigotry and homophobia as well.
While there is plenty of room for discussion about how much support we should give to Israel (financial support, weapons, intelligence, or simply having their back with the UN), the relationship between our countries is definitely something that we should be watching. This alliance is in the best interest of the United States.
* Christine Luc is a chiropractor, small business owner, and mother who loves to rant about the size and scope of government. She loves this website as it has given her a chance to put her ranting tendencies to constructive use.
Like Loading...
The rest is here:
According to VPAP, it looks like theres going to be a Libertarian candidate (named Jason Carrier) for governor of Virginia, assuming of course that hes able to make the ballot (not an easy matter in Virginia). Heres some of what he has to say on his Facebook page. To put it mildly, hes not a fan of liberals, progressives, Democratsall of whom he seems to think are socialists, which he also believes are identical to National Socialists, whichyeah, dont ask.
If we are tired of how the government taxes us, spies on us, restricts our liberty, it is up to regular Americans (Farmer, Truck Drivers, Veterans, IT nerds) to run for office.
So for those of you who dont know, I am running for Governor of Virginia as the Libertarian candidate. The party asked and I said yes. I have never been a politician and I am going to need all the help I can get. This means volunteers and fund raising, etc. The first step is getting 10,000 names ballot petition. If you are interested in helping please let me know. I will be setting up website, and other items I hope this week. If you are interested in helping please PM me. If you have any questions about the LP party where we stand on issues ask them here, I will do my best to answer them.
As a Libertarian I support withholding all federal funds from all states they should stand on there own as much as possible and reject all federal mandates not in the constitution
I keep hearing people refer to Trump as Orange Hitler. I dont understand this label. Hitler was a socialist Trump is into Cronyism. Hitler build camps to keep people in Germany, Trump says he wants to throw people out. Although deportations are down. Hitler passed Universal Health Care, Trump says ObamaCare will be repelled, although he has not done it yet. Hitler passed 100% Gun registration and bans for people that were unstable, Trump says he supports the second amendment. Hitler believed in free education, Trumps says pay your own way. Hitler wanted to tax the rich to pay for social programs, Trumps say 15% flat tax. Hell based on the analysis of the Nazis party platform, Hitler would be head of the Democratic National Community. Just saying these are fact. Call Trump and asshole if you want, but Hitler is a bit of a stretch
I was talking today about the Federal land grabs out west, specifically Utah and Nevada. It is like the government is trying to round it citizen up put them into reservations where they have to buy water, food, shelter, and medical from them. It just seems wrong to me.
This meme is funny but historically inaccurate Nazis were socialists people rioting and burning books are socialists same shit different time
I going to post this and I am sure it is going to piss off my fellow Libertarians. I saw Trump signed an executive order that for every new regulation passed two had to be taken away. This is pretty awesome. So could he be the Libertarian president we were hoping for? Internet trolling done now to work
So ODU just released a study that shows Clinton got at least 800,000 votes from non citizen can we now get voter ID laws. I dont want Republicans to cheat either. Libertarians please feel free to cheat as much as we need to
Love me some Ron Paul
I am not a Trump supporter, but if you are attacking black performers for reaching across the aisle and calling them every racist slur in the book, you are an asshole. I heard what people called Steve Harvey, it is not acceptable.
If they lived in reality they would not advocate Socalism. It has failed for 100 years, and killed 200 million people, but lets give it one more try, with the most technically advanced military in the world, what could go wrong
Nazis were national Socalist party of Germany, same as USSR. I dont know why we dont teach this
Read the original:
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan speaks on the proposed American Health Care Act.
On Monday, congressional Republicans rolled out their new health care plan, which is supposed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Donald Trump hailed our wonderful new Healthcare Bill. But his enthusiasm for the proposed American Health Care Act is not widely shared. In addition to the expected critiques from the left, the bill has been forcefully condemned by a wide range of conservative and libertarian health care experts. These leading critics of Obamacare argue that the GOP proposal is just as bad, and possibly even worse.
Michael Cannon, well-known health care analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, offered a particularly harsh appraisal, denouncing the new bill as Obamacare lite or worse:
This bill is a train wreck waiting to happen The Obamacare regulations it retains are already causing insurance markets to collapse. It would allow that collapse to continue, and even accelerate the collapse.
Republicans dont seem to have any concept of the quagmire they are about to enter with this bill.
If this is the choice, it would be better if Congress simply did nothing.
As Cannon explains,the new GOP plan has a similar structure to Obamacare, fails to address most of its flaws, and may well make some of them worse. Republicans should take note: If one of Obamacares leading critics concludes that your repeal and replace bill is even worse than Obamacare, and worse than doing nothing, thats a pretty damning indictment.
Other right of center economists and health care experts have offered similarly damning assessments, including Megan McArdle, Peter Suderman, Scott Sumner, and Avik Roy. Roy argues that the proposal includes some valuable reforms for Medicaid, but concludes that this benefit is outweighed by the many harmful aspects of the plan. Sudermans bottom line is even more negative: In general, its not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.
I am no fan of Obamacare myself, and was involved in helping develop the constitutional case against it that led to the Supreme Courts controversial ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. But I find it sobering that even many of the ACAs toughest critics fear that the GOP alternative is likely to be worse.
A crucial point emphasized by many of these critics is that the GOP plan does little or nothing to constrain health care costs or open up the insurance industry to wider market competition. As Cannon puts it, Congress needs to enact reforms that make health care more affordable, rather than just subsidize unaffordable care. The GOP plan, he explains, does mostly the latter, often even more inefficiently and coercively than Obamacare.
McArdle points out that the new plan is as much a gigantic Rube Goldberg contraption as Obamacare is. She also notes that the GOP hopes to use many of the same procedural tricks to disguise its flaws as Democrats did with those of the ACA. It is far from clear they will manage to get away with it.
Because the plan is so enormously complicated and has so many moving parts, it could easily unravel in a wide range of unexpected ways, as the different components fail to interact as expected. For reasons F.A. Hayek famously explained, even the wisest of bureaucratic central planners lack the knowledge to foresee and offset such problems. And todays Republican Party is not exactly overflowing with wisdom and competence.
If the GOP plan falters like Obamacare has, its flaws will be exacerbated by another feature the two policies have in common: lack of bipartisan support. If it gets through Congress at all, the AHCA is likely to pass on a strict party-line vote or close to it, just like the ACA. From the standpoint of the opposition party, the optimal political strategy will be sit back, watch the trainwreck happen, and saddle the party that passed the plan with the blame.
Just as Republicans had no incentive to help Obama fix the flaws in the ACA, so Democrats will have no incentive to help fix problems with the new GOP plan. Partisan bias is a powerful and increasingly pernicious force, and it could potentially undermine the GOPs health care policy. Admittedly, Democratic opposition may not matter much if the Republicans expand their congressional majorities in 2018 and 2020. But recent history suggests that neither party can count on controlling Congress for long. And in the Senate, many bills are subject to filibuster, effectively requiring 60 votes to pass.
This entire sorry state of affairs is even more the fault of congressional Republicans than Donald nobody knew health care could be so complicated Trump. These had seven years to come up with an alternative to Obamacare, and so far their work product is far from impressive. Sad! Nonetheless, Trumps ignorance, reckless statements, and disdain for free market ideas have also contributed to the problem.
Despite GOP control of both houses of Congress, there is a very real chance that the new bill will not pass. It has already come under fire from both conservative and moderate wings of the party. Given the narrowness of the 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate and the unyielding opposition of Democrats, the plan will be defeated if even as few as three Republicans defect.
In fairness, given the divisions within the party, it is not an easy task to cobble together a bill that is both an improvement over Obamacare and acceptable to all the key factions within the GOP. Whether Republicans can overcome these problems and come up with something better than this initial effort remains to be seen. At this point, it is hard to be optimistic.
Read this article:
Conservative and libertarian health care experts pan GOP's Obamacare lite plan - Washington Post
Libertarian Party(Photo: Courtesy/Special to Poweshiek County CR)
The Iowa Secretary of State has announced that the Libertarian Party of Iowa has obtained official political party status in Iowa, effective March 1. The Libertarian Partys presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, received 59,186 votes, which was 3.8 percent of the vote in the November 2016 general election, surpassing the two percent threshold required by Iowa Code to obtain official political party status.
Johnsons 3.8 percent of the vote in Iowa was slightly more than the 3.3 percent he received nationally
I would like to congratulate the Libertarian Party of Iowa on being recognized as an official political party by the state, Secretary Paul D. Pate said. I encourage all Iowans to become and remain active in the political process.
Prior to the 2016 election, the Libertarian Party in Iowa was considered a non-party political organization (NPPO) and did not have some of the privileges granted to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, two parties with political party status.
NPPOs must have their presidential or gubernatorial candidate receive more than 2 percent of the vote to be recognized as a full-status political party. If a partys nominee does not receive two percent of the total votes cast, the partys status is cancelled.
Political party status gives the Libertarian Party the ability to participate in primary elections in 2018. The Libertarian Party will be included as an option for Iowans on voter registration forms as well.
Libertarian Party state chair, Keith Laube, stated, Having our candidates be part of the Primary Election will allow voters to become familiar with our candidates earlier in the election season. Our candidates will know they are on the November ballot in early June rather than late August. This will help organize stronger campaigns and provide voters more opportunity to understand Libertarian views. Laube added, Having more candidates share their ideas by being involved in the entire election cycle is good for Iowa.
The last instance when a non-party political organization was successful at gaining political party status in Iowa was in the year 2000. Iowa Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received 29,374 votes, or 2.2 percent of the total votes cast for president.
The current number of voters registered as Libertarian in Iowa is 9,100.
Iowa voters could start registering as a Libertarian in. Since January 2016, voters are able to register to vote and change their political party affiliation on the Iowa Secretary of State website. Major party status will become effective 21 days from the filing.
Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2mHl3Lb
Follow this link:
Iowa Libertarian Party official party - DesMoinesRegister.com
President Trump issued a new executive order this week that revises, rescinds, and replaces his prior order banning immigration from several majority-Muslim countries. The new order, which is scheduled to taked effect on March 16, is supposed to bolster the White Houses case in court, resolving legal defects that prevented the ban from prevailing the first time around.
In some ways, it accomplishes its goal, but in other ways, the new order undermines several legal arguments that the administration has been making.
While defending the president against a lawsuit brought by the state of Washington, the administrations attorneys justified his list of seven majority-Muslim countries by stating that they were previously identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism by Congress or the Executive Branch. In fact, they said, Congress itself identified Iraq and Syria as countries of concern.
This argument was always weak because, although Congress did single out these countries for additional vetting, it still specifically provided for the ability of Iraqi and Syrian nationals to come to America so long as they had a visa. But now the president has excluded Iraq from the list, which means its justification that this list was something Congress put together is gone.
The whole point of the ban, as the administration put it, was to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. In other words, because the vetting process is inadequate, and these nationalities are (in the eyes of the administration) inherently dangerous, people from the selected countries cannot be allowed in.
The new order exempts current visa holders from these countries. But this change totally undermines the argument that these nationals are dangerous even if they are screened. By fixing one problem, the administration creates another one for itself. If these nationals are dangerous, why would it concede to allow any of them in?
Heres a more immediate concern for the administration. When the original order was challenged, the administration argued in court that any delay in implementation immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment. It is likely that they will argue the same when this one is challenged.
President Trump signed a new executive order on immigration Monday that revised his first one halted by the courts. Here's a look at what is different about this new order and whether it will face the same legal issues. Photo: Getty
Yet the new order delays the effective date for more than a week. It does so to resolve a potential legal concern tied to banning people without notice. But the delay effectively eviscerates the argument from the presidents legal team that a judges decision to suspend enforcement of it would impose irreparable harm. A judge could respond, If thats true, did the presidents delay also harm the United States?
The administration also claimed that this was not a ban intended to reduce admissions of immigrants from these majority Muslim countries. Instead, it was just a temporary 90-day pause on entries from these places to allow the government to review vetting procedures. But now the new order restarts this timeline.
Why would the clock on reviewing procedures stop ticking just because the old order wasnt blocking entries? This provides evidence that these timelines were in fact arbitrary and that the goal wasnt about giving the administration time to review, but rather about cutting legal immigration of peoplemainly Muslim immigrantsthat the administration simply does not like.
Despite all of the changes, the fundamental problems persist. The order still references 1952 law providing that the president can exclude any class of alien if he finds them detrimental. But this justification ignores a later-enacted 1965 law that bans discrimination against immigrant visa applicants based on nationality. While the 1965 law provides a list of exceptions, the 1952 law was specifically not included among them.
Congress did not want to allow the president this authority. In fact, it specifically debated the question of whether difficult-to-screen countries should be included under the 1965 non-discrimination rule and decided that they should be.
This means that the executive order re-boot is still legally suspect. Indeed, in some ways, because it undermines so many of the governments arguments, the order has become even more suspect than it was before, and the courts should tell the president to go back to the drawing board once again.
David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institutes Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
Read the original:
Opinion: A libertarian explains why Trump's new travel ban is still legally suspect - MarketWatch
President Trump's recent executive order, titled "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Cost," speaks the language of the principled libertarians, but its beneficiaries are likely to be the thugs.
The order prohibits any agency from issuing any new regulation unless it also repeals two regulations that cost as much as the new one. "Costs" mean the cost of complying with the regulation. The harms that were the reason for the regulation don't count at all.
David Dana and Michael Barsa observe the implications of Trump's order. The Department of Interior created a set of new regulations in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, in which BP spilled nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It was the largest marine oil spill in history, and, Dana and Barsa wrote, it cost "nearly $9 billion for lost fisheries and $23 billion for lost tourism, not to mention the catastrophic effects on marine life and birds. Yet under the president's order, the only costs that matter are those to the oil companies. Costs to the public and to the environment are completely ignored." The regulations aren't cheap; the cost to the industry has been estimated at hundreds of millions. But that's peanuts compared to the costs of another spill.
Trump is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Like her fictional hero John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged," he wants to free business from the heavy hand of government. But this is an oddly distorted libertarianism, in which Rand's villains masquerade as her heroes: those who talk most of liberty are the looters and moochers.
Conservatives worry about "regulatory capture": the danger that regulators will abandon the public interest at the behest of regulated industries, keeping prices high and stifling competition. The solution is to get rid of regulation: the state should butt out and let the market operate. There's no doubt that capture has sometimes happened. A notorious example is the Civil Aeronautics Board: after it was abolished in 1985, airline competition intensified and prices plunged.
There is, however, another way in which unworthy special interests can seize control of government. They can work to cripple regulation, so that they can hurt and defraud people. Libertarian rhetoric has turned out to be a rich resource for them.
Barack Obama is actually a better libertarian than Trump. He spent years teaching at the University of Chicago, where the idea of regulatory capture was developed. That had an impact: when he was President, he demanded (following a principle laid down by Ronald Reagan!) that any new regulations survive rigorous cost-benefit analysis. That immunizes regulations from capture, and makes sure that regulators take account of just what worries Trump, the cost to businesses. The overall net value -- benefits minus costs -- of Obama's regulations was upward of $100 billion.
Trump, on the other hand, has replaced cost-benefit analysis with cost analysis. Benefits are ignored. This isn't even business-friendly. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill destroyed hundreds of well-functioning businesses. On the other hand, the businesses that were crushed were small and had nothing like BP's political connections.
There's room for reasonable disagreement with Obama's regulations. The calculation of both costs and benefits inevitably involves some guesswork. The cumulative effect of regulation can hamper businesses. The big difference between Trump and the standard conservatives' critique of Obama is that Trump's executive order holds, as a matter of principle, that benefits don't matter. Consumer fraud, tainted food, pollution, unsafe airplanes and trains, epidemic disease all have to be put up with, if stopping them would increase the costs of regulation.
Trump's new "regulatory reforms" show a persistent pattern. One targets a rule that requires retirement advisers to put clients' interests ahead of their own. Conflicts of interest in retirement advice, for example steering clients into products with higher fees and lower returns, costs American families an estimated $17 billion a year. You can understand why some parts of the financial industry hated the rule. That $17 billion was going into someone's pocket, and that someone finds libertarian rhetoric right handy.
The Libertarian Party, which got more than 4 million votes in the last presidential election, is enthusiastic about the order. It shouldn't be. The order is a deep betrayal of libertarianism, which holds that people should do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
Freeing businesses to hurt people is not libertarian. The libertarians -- at least, the ones who don't see through Trump -- are being played. If the crippling of the state allows economic behemoths to do whatever they like to others, then what libertarianism licenses, in the garb of liberty, is the creation of a new aristocracy, entitled to hurt the commoners. This is just a different kind of mooching and looting.
It is a new road to serfdom. It reinforces the prejudices of those on the left who repudiate capitalism. The libertarians who embrace it, thinking that they are thereby promoting freedom, are useful idiots, like the idealistic leftists of the 1930s whose hatred of poverty and racism led them to embrace Stalin. John Galt is a sap.
More:
Editors Note: Seriously is a satire column, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. The vies expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Collegians editorial board.
Claiming that Libertarians everywhere want to resist the temptation of government and grow closer to God, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party Wes Benedict announced that the Libertarian Party is giving up paying taxes for Lent.
We as Libertarians want to refocus this time of year on our most Heavenly duty: to not do a goddamn thing for anyone else, Benedict said, noting that while Libertarians would be participating in the Catholic tradition of Lent, its not like theyre religious or anything. Our country was founded by people who wanted to be free from religious persecution and we hope the statists respect our religious rights to not give a fucking dime to benefit anyone other than ourselves.
When questioned by critics, Benedict defended the move as living as God intended, probably, free from the shackles of shared social responsibility and having to actually cooperate with other human beings.
I dont know the Bible, like, super well, Benedict said, but the devil is totally a statist. I mean, forcing people to give up their souls and suffer for eternity? Hes like the IRS!
When asked by reporters why the party didnt simply give up government for Lent, Benedict said that the idea hadnt been discussed.
Damn, thats a good idea! Why didnt we think of that?
At press time, Benedict could be overheard loudly debating the merits of the Sixteenth Amendment with tax collectors, arguing that the constitutional right of the government to collect taxes was freaking bogus.
Disclaimer: Seriously is a satire blog, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All articles from Seriously are creations of fiction, and presumably fake publications. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are fictitious events based on real people. Photos used do not have any connection to the story and are used within the rights of free reuse, as well as cited to the best of our ability. Seriously is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience.
Go here to see the original:
Seriously: Libertarian Party to give up paying taxes for Lent - Rocky Mountain Collegian
As Kirralie Smith sits at a sidewalk table in Taree for an interview this week, there is a palpable tension. Sheis mistrustful of what she calls the mainstream media, particularly those elements she believes are biased towards the left.
But Smithhas agreed to talk because she will, she says, use any platform to express her view that Islam is an ideology of violence, intolerance and sexism.
Play Video Don't Play
Play Video Don't Play
Previous slide Next slide
Kirralie Smith is a well-known anti-Islamic politician and activist, and she is being tapped as Australia's newest libertarian leader.
Play Video Don't Play
Police are searching for a man who stole the name and qualifications of an Indian doctor who treated patients across several Sydney hospitals for 11 years. Vision: Network Ten
Play Video Don't Play
A woman and her seven-year-old boy were killed in a car crash on the Hume Highway near Wilton, a seven-year-old twin sister is in a stable condition. Vision: Network Ten
Play Video Don't Play
A woman and her seven-year-old boy have died in a crash on the Hume Highway near Wilton, a seven-year-old girl is fighting for life with critical injuries.
Play Video Don't Play
A low-pressure system over the Tasman Sea provided surfers with decent rides at Dee Why this morning. Video by Nick Moir.
Play Video Don't Play
A woman and a seven-year-old boy have died following a horrific crash on the Hume Motorway south of Sydney. A seven-year-old girl is fighting for life in hospital with critical injuries. Vision: Nine News.
Play Video Don't Play
The former head of the NSW gaming authority has said it was a mistake for the former NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell to grant a licence to James Packer to build a high rollers casino in Sydney without a public inquiry. ABC TV's Four Corners
Play Video Don't Play
Violence has increased in suburbs surrounding the lockout precincts in the Sydney CBD and Kings Cross, according to a report from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Kirralie Smith is a well-known anti-Islamic politician and activist, and she is being tapped as Australia's newest libertarian leader.
Smith received relatively little attention during the last federal election as a NSW Senate candidate for the Australian Liberty Alliance, the political offshoot of the Q Society, which describes itself as "Australia's leading Islam-critical movement".
("Q Society supports an integrated multi-ethnic Australia and rejects racism, which the Oxford dictionary defines as: 'Belief in the superiority of a particular race.' Since Islam is not a race or ethnicity, being critical of Islam is not racist," its website explains.)
But she is likely to receive far more press in the coming weeks as the co-defendant in a defamation action being brought by the businessman Mohammed El-Mouelhy, who was the subject of a critical video produced by the Q Society and presented by Smith.
Already Smith and the Q Society, also named in the suit, have rallied an impressive line-up of public supporters, including Coalition right-wingersCory Bernardi, George Christensen and the former MP Ross Cameron, who are among a handful of public figures set to address fundraisers to be held in Sydney and Melbourne on February 9 and 10.
We sit and both reach for our phones to turn on recording apps. Smith has already explained that she wants her own record of our conversation. The tension dissipates a little when a sky-blue ute throbs past us and Smith laughs and points out the personalised number plate, "TRUMP1". Later she will tell me that she rejects the suggestion she is right wing, rather, she says she a part of the silent majority of mainstream conservatives whose voices are now being heard due to victories of Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign.
Smith says she never intended to pursue politics. She has always been happiest as a wife and mother. "I love being my husband's wife," she says to emphasise the point.
As it was, a confluence of events brought her to her mission. In 2000 Smith and her husband Greg, a tradesman, sought out volunteer work in Mali and there met the Assemblies of God missionary Faouzi Arzouni, whom she describes as a Muslim apostate who became a friend and mentor.
Two years later the couple went on another trip, a 10-day visit to refugee camps ofthe displaced of what is now known as the Maluku sectarian conflict in Indonesia, during which Christian and Muslim communities fell into violent political and ethnic conflict. Smith recalls sitting in refugee camps hearing terrible stories of violence perpetrated by Muslims.
In 2009 Smith's husband took her to a talk being given by Mark Durie, an Anglican vicar. During that lecture Durie expressed concern about buying certain supermarket products because they had been certified as halal.
Smith was intrigued and began her own investigations on the internet, learning that many brands are halal-certified, and that a portion of the fees paid for such certification is donated to Muslim charities. In other countries, Smith contends, those charities have directed funds towards groups with terrorist links. Her online investigation became a website, Halal Choices, a campaign and, with the support of Bernardi and Christensen, a parliamentary inquiry into "third party" food certification. Finally it became a political ambit, with Smith running for the ALA in a campaign launched by the anti-Islamic immigration Dutch MP Geert Wilders.
"There is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a historical error as soon as it was uttered," Wilders once told Dutch parliament.
"I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, socalled honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister's Sharia mortgages, and the enormous over-representation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists," Wilders said.
Smith says she does not believe there is an imminent threat of adopting Sharia law, but is concerned about what she calls "creeping Sharia".
"We are being encouraged very strongly to tolerate Sharia finance, halal certification, the hijab," she says.
"Sharia is definitely present in Australia I believe there are honour killings and it is all reported under domestic violence or another name," she says. As evidence she says she has close friends who are pastors who work in churches who have provided sanctuary to victims.
But Smith's concerns are broader than creeping sharia. During the US election she was horrified by Hillary Clinton's support for abortion rights. She opposes political correctness, Safe Schools andbig government regulations imposed upon farmers by distant bureaucrats.
"I pretty much oppose everything the Greens stand for," she says.
She was also appalled by the Liberal Party's abandonment of Tony Abbott for Malcolm Turnbull.
This broader political outlook, and Smith's articulate direct manner, has led some observers to speculate that she is a potential leader for a new conservative movement, one energised by the international populist surge.
She is, says John Adams, a former Coalition adviser who has written about the need for more intellectual depth in the new conservative movement, a more capable and charismatic messenger than, say, Pauline Hanson. ("I think Pauline has a lot of good sentiment, I am not sure about the ability," says Smith of Hanson.)
In the months since the campaign Smith has kept in touch with supporters via videos on her Facebook page. In them she is relentlessly bright and articulate, upbeat about Christmas and Australia Day, though scandalised by the recent billboard that showed a pair of little girls celebrating in a hijab andcheerily opposed to the "threat" of multiculturalism. She denies ever having had media training, though confesses that she is constantly asked if she has.
Asked if she plans to run for office again Smith says she cannot answer the question as her entire focus is directed towards the defamation action and her family.
"People say this is sexist, well I am sexist, I love being a wife and mother, that is the best I have ever done in my life I love being my husband's wife."
In the next breath she adds that sheand her husband have made the decision to use any platform to put forward their message.
"I want to be able to look my children in the eye and say I did everything I could to stand for what is right."
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the Reverend Mark Durie's relationship to the Q Society. He is in fact an occasional speaker for the Q Society.
Continued here:
(Screenshot)
Being a libertarian in college can feel like youre a Jedi surrounded by a droid army. Youre constantly under attack with only a few friends. Well, this is the way Tom Ciccotta portrayed it in a New York Times op-ed on February 28th.
Leftists, in an effort to make campuses welcoming ostensibly, for everyone end up frequently silencing conservative and libertarian students, Ciccotta, a senior at Bucknell University, wrote. They paint any argument that isnt progressive as immoral, so conservative students can find themselves branded as such. Needless to say, this can be socially isolating.
Ciccotta is completely sincere in his analysis about life as a libertarian on campus. But is his experience the norm or the exception?
Christina Herrin attended The University of Iowa, one of the most liberal colleges in the state. She was regularly involved in the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and as well as Rand Pauls presidential campaign in 2015 and 2016. She told Red Alert Politics that there were many instances in which she felt the administration and other students were against her. On one occasion, pro-life chalking they etched was washed away because it was offensive. In another instance, Iowas YAL chapter was kicked off campus while trying to demonstrate against the war on drugs.
I agree 100 percent with [Ciccottas] article and institutions that promote free speech zones and safe spaces and dont encourage diversity of thought are doing a great disservice to my generation, Herrin said. It is sad to me because even though I dont agree, the amount I have learned while debating with others has taught me so much about my own argument, and has actually pushed me to be more conservative/liberty minded.
It was frustrating and difficult for me, as a student, to have friends who were unwilling to even come listen to Rand Paul speak when we brought him to campus because he was whatever liberal sound bite youd like to insert, she continued. It is hard to have people that are so guarded by their walls to even look at another opinion.
Conner Dunleavy, who attends the University of Albany, also felt that college campuses were biased against libertarian positions. He said that he was lucky because libertarian-leaning organizations like YAL were growing rapidly. However, outside of that, there were very few people willing to be open to his politics.
Outside of our clubs, however, universities are often political deserts where only the perceived majority opinion is tolerated, Conner Dunleavy said to RAP. Naturally it seems conservative students were our allies, outnumbered together and facing the sometimes violent liberal students who tend to try shouting down minority opinions.
Yet, Ciccotta, Dunleavy, and Herrins experiences werent universal among prominent libertarians when they were in college.
I do not feel like my views get silenced as much, but there is a lack of political diversity in most of the liberal arts majors, said Vamsi Krishna Pappusetti, a student at Arizona State University. My YAL chapter does not get protested nor do the faculty keep us from tabling or holding meetings. We try to table out as much as we can and I never really dealt with many hecklers. I cannot say the same for other students though from either TP USA or College Republicans.
So while most libertarians did feel isolated in a political desert, there were exceptions to the rule. Not every student felt surrounded waiting for Yoda to save them.
Read this article:
Is it lonely being a libertarian in college? - Red Alert Politics
Writing in the March/April issue of Politico Magazine, Tim Albertas headline posesa question that has been all too popular nowadays. Namely, does the age of Trump signal the end of the libertarian dream?
From the piece:
After generations of being relegated to the periphery of American politics, they are seeing some of their most precious ideals accepted and advocated for at the highest levels of government. But in many policy areas, there has never been a president who poses a greater threat to what they hold dearone who is poised, potentially, to reorient the GOP electorate toward a strong, active, centralized and protectionist federal government.
RELATED:Rand Paul can save health care reform
Indeed, so far the Trump administration has beenpretty schizophrenic when it comes to liberty. On one hand, the confirmation of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is thegreatest political victory school choicecommunity has experiencedon the federal level. Similarly, President Trumps two-for-one deregulatory special, while questionable on its implementation, signals a serious effort to dismantle the regulatory state.
On the other hand, Trump is so far removed from libertarian ideals on other issues, itboggles the mind. He wants to spend $1 trillion on big government infrastructure projects. He wants to build up the military and once threatened to bomb the shit out of ISIS. His protectionist agenda threatens less immigration, travel, and trade across Americas borders.
This split in policy has similarly split libertarians politically and professionally.As a young professional in Washington, Ive seen many close friends and acquaintances in the libertarian network get tapped by the administration for a potential job. Some say yes, reasoning that its better to have a seat at the table than be on the menu. Others say no,reckoning that theres no need to abandon their ideals if theyre already satisfied at a job where they can keep them.
Of course, theres no right or wrong answer. A well-functioning administration should ideally have both practical libertarians on the insidedoing the hardwork implementingpro-libertychange as well as idealist libertarians on the outsideholding them to their most cherished values. This dual dynamicseems to only avail itself during Republican administrations, presenting libertarians with a rare opportunity in the age of Trump to actually achieve some policy victories.
In short, anyone bemoaning the end of the libertarian moment in the age of Trump isnt looking close enough. Certainly, libertariansmay have seemed stronger when we were a united opposition front to the Obama administration. After all, its much sexier to be a critic than thanan actual agent of change. Nevertheless, Trumps ascent to the presidencyis itself a vindication of libertarian policy on certain issues (education, regulation) and an invitation on othersto join the team and fight for liberty (taxes, spending).
RELATED:Who are we? | The liberty movement in the Trump era
The movement is sure seem silent or even fractured in the next few years, but looks may be deceiving. Behind the stillness are hundreds of libertarians infiltrating the administrative state, influencing federal bureaucracies that havent been subject to internal restraint for years. Behind the split are libertarian think tanks and advocacy groups who have the ear of the ruling Republican party and can successfully pressure them to make pro-liberty policy victories.
In short, Mr. Libertarian has gone to Washington, and the opportunities are endless.
Continue reading here:
(Screenshot)
From its inception,X-Menrelied heavily on political undertones and took on sensitive subjects including racism, segregation, AIDS, and war. The latest (and best)film in the franchise isLogan no exception and while being more character-driven than previous films, it shows why Wolverine is the most libertarian superhero of all time.
The film takes place in the year 2029 and the character of Wolverine has aged significantly, is living off the grid with Professor X, and is making a living bydrivinga limo using a car sharing app whats more libertarian than Uber?His superhero days are long behind him and the only time he acts violently is when hes provoked.
Throughout the film, Wolverine constantly fantasizes about living on a boat with Professor X and being free of dealing with anyone a poor mans version of Peter Thiels dream of seasteading.
His fantasies are interrupted when a new character named Laura emerges, she has the same super powers and has suffered at the hands of military scientists who conducted experimentations on Logan and gave both of them adamantium claws.
(**SPOILER ALERT **)
Logan wasnever been a believer in mutant brotherhood and the identity politics that surrounds the X-Men comics. Hes a loner, a recluse, and a libertarian, he doesnt want to be part of any institutions and questions other mutants for their needing to belong.When Professor X demands they protect Laura he at first rejects the idea insisting its not my problem but has a change of heart when he learns shes his cloned-daughter who raised in a military lab.
His decision to protect Laura and Professor dont come out of any identity-based philosophy, but only for the fact that he choose to treat them like family.
The last X-Men decides he has to get his daughter to safety in a community 0f mutants, away from the long reach of the military-industrial complex that destroyed his life.
Over the course of the 9 X-Men movies featuring Wolverine, the character is a constant struggle to live independently of the government intrusion, the police state that tries to document and imprison mutants, and the identity politics that forces mutants to live their entire life based upon the features they were born with.
Its inLoganthat Wolverine finally is able to achieve those libertarian dreams for his daughter.
Excerpt from:
'Logan' proves Wolverine is the most libertarian superhero ever - Red Alert Politics
The podcast is finally here...
Wealth Daily subscribers are getting the first look at brand-new podcast the Libertarian Tree Hugger.
In this weekly show - headed by Jeff Siegel - we cut the nonsense, tackle "real" issues and provide practical advice on everything from organic farming to surviving Trump's America.
What you can expect is a straight forward, no lies approach. We don't hold back. But that is your gain. We want to highlight the growing industries, political issues and wise investments that are taking place in this new America.
When it comes to policy and controversy, last week was a doozy.
Today we focus on the controversy surrounding tech billionaire Peter Thiels data-mining company Palantir and itsnew tech, which is basically an early-stage Muslim registry.
We take a moment to reflect on Jeff Sessions' self-recusal from all cases involving Russia (ouch, Republicans). And Jeff delivers a scathing critique of one of Americas central systems: education. Will we even have schools after a month of Devos?
As always, we love to hear from, so feel free to drop us a line.
You can subscribe to the Libertarian Tree Hugger on Buzzsprout.
Or you can listen on our podcast player below:
We look forward to talking to you next week.
Jeff Siegel
Jeff Siegelhas been active in the financial publishing business since the mid-90s.
A true capitalist, Jeff has made his fortune in what's known as socially responsible investing, focusing primarily on alternative energy and transportation markets, sustainability, legal cannabis, and agriculture. He's a regular on the conference circuit, and every now and then you might find him appearing on Fox, CNBC, or Bloomberg.
From 1994 to 2001, Jeff worked for Agora Publishing, one of the largest financial newsletter publishers in the world, before packing his bags and traveling across the globe in search of mega-trends and his own version of nirvana...
He found both in the world of "green" markets.
Jeff's early analyses of alternative energy and socially responsible investing drew much criticism from the status quo. His unapologetic capitalist spirit and abrasive nature didn't earn him many accolades from colleagues, either...
But after accurately predicting dozens of trends in the ever-changing landscape of "green" market investing, many have since traded their preconceptions of socially responsible investing for profits.
Often declaring, Capitalism is a catalyst for positive change, Jeff continues to spot the most lucrative renewable energy, organic food, and cannabis companies in the world. And his thousands of loyal readers have made small fortunes in the process.
Each week, Jeff shares the latest in "green" market news as well as his own market updates and recommendations.
Jeff also works as a consultant, has been a featured guest on Fox, CNBC, and Bloomberg Asia, is the author of the best-selling energy book, Investing in Renewable Energy: Making Money on Green Chip Stocks, and is the co-author of Energy Investing for Dummies.
Alexandra Perry
Alexandra Perry is a contributing analyst for Wealth Daily and Energy and Capital. She has multiple years of experience working with startup companies, primarily focusing on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, alternative energy, and biotech. Her take on investing is simple: a new age of investor can make monumental returns by investing in emerging industries and foundational startup ventures.
Sign up to receive the Wealth Daily newsletter - it's absolutely free! In each issue, you'll get our best investment research, designed to help you build a lifetime of wealth, minus the risk. Plus, by signing up, you'll instantly receive our new report: Surviving the Coming Economic Collapse.
Link:
Download New Podcast: Libertarian Tree Hugger - Wealth Daily - Wealth Daily
Being Libertarian, Liberty Link Media Group Announce Strategic Media Partnership Being Libertarian Being Libertarian LLC is proud to announce that it will, through its media division, Being LibertTV, be entering into a comprehensive, strategic, long-term relationship with Liberty Link Media Group, the popular venture started by Nicholas Veser and ... |
Read the original here:
Being Libertarian, Liberty Link Media Group Announce Strategic Media Partnership - Being Libertarian