LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Kody Fairfield

A journalist, and frequent guest of Bill Mahers Real Time has cancelled his appearance on the show this Friday night because of Breitbart editor and conservative provocateurMilo Yiannopoulos being chosen as the lead guest, reportsDeadline.

The founder of the Intercept, Jeremy Scahill, has removed himself from the line up of the HBO political talk show in protest of Yiannopoulos saying in a statement released on Twitter that the booking of Milo is many bridges too far.

Deadline reports that Scahill has been a recurring guest on Mahers show over the past decade and that Scahill admits he might not always be popular with its audience.

[Maher]and his staff have created a vital platform for debate and discussion that at times I love and other times loathe, he wrote in the post. I know I fall into the latter category for some of the shows viewers because I hear from them every time I appear. Whatever one might say about Bill, he always allows guests to challenge him or disagree with him.

Scahill in his statement expressed that he believes Milo will incite violence against immigrants, transgender people, and others.

On Friday, a spokesperson for HBO told Deadlinethat Yiannopoulos would appear in the studio with Maher, and that, as with other weeks, an appropriate amount of security will be on hand.

Read more from the original source:

Journalist Cancels Appearance on Real Time Because of Milo - The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Zach Foster

Most people are used to seeing signs that say, dont feed the animals, as those signs are posted in parks and zoos. Whatno one expects to see, however, are signs that say Do not feed the people, right?

One of the oldest traditions of Western civilization is giving alms to the poor, including feeding the homeless. The City of Los Angeles almost made it illegal to feed the homeless. This is how a group of activists stopped big government in its tracks.

In 2013, Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge introduced a motion before the City Council prohibiting anyone from feeding the homeless in public rights of way (sidewalks, street corners, open areas). The councilmen justified the motion on health and food safety reasons. Libertarian activist Angela McArdle had a problem with the motion.

Who are they to tell the people theyre not allowed to help the needy? says McArdle. According to the paralegal and Libertarian activist, she and her friends have been feeding the homeless for years. LaBonges rationalization for the motion was that it protected the homeless from food poisoning from improperly prepared food. If people wanted to help them, they would have to incorporate, become accountable to the IRS, open a kitchen, and have their facilities inspected by city, county, state, and federal bureaucrats.

Not all homeless people are out there on the corners asking for change. Most of them keep a low profileits so easy to get harassed or assaulted. A lot of them really do go hungry and need the help. If I want to make sandwiches at home and hand them to the homeless people I see on my way to work, thats my business.

One of the biggest problems with the motion proposed in the L.A. City Council is its typical of the current atmosphere. Very few cities in densely-populated California actually do anything to solve the problem of homelessness. Rather than developing and enacting policies to reduce homelessness, city councils go for the quick fix and make it illegal to be homeless.

By passing vagrancy laws, restricting the hours and use of public spaces, and making feeding the homeless in public spaces illegal, cities merely pass the buck as entire tent cities and homeless populations are legislated out of one city after another. They bounce around the L.A. County grid like ping pong balls.

Just recently, the City of L.A. made it illegal for people to sleep in their car, McArdle says. That infuriates me. My legal clients are people who were wrongfully evicted or foreclosed on. The first few nights, many of them have nothing but their car for them and their children to sleep in for that night. All the City government did was take away another safety net protecting people from the city streets at night.

Angela McArdle, paralegal and Libertarian activist

In addition to losing a layer of protection against the grittier kinds of people found on city streets and alleys, people in violation of this ordinance will be ticketed or possibly detained. That only creates another financial burden for the homeless, many of whom lost their homes due to financial struggles, not delinquent behavior. Restricting the public from feeding the homeless is one more burden on the latter group.

Angela McArdle and friends joined up with the non-profit Monday Night Mission to protest the indefensible motion. The protest was held on Hollywood and Vine, fittingly in the district of Tom LaBonge, sponsor of the anti-homeless motion. Nearly a thousand people attended and it was covered in the local L.A. TV stations. The overwhelming show of public opposition to the motion put an end to it before it was voted on.

Three years later, Tom LaBonge retired amidst allegations of misuse of $600,000 in taxpayer funds. The L.A. Times reported that the City Attorneys investigative task force has approved only $83,000 of the $600,000 spent by LaBonges office.

The defeat of the anti-homeless motion is an example of ordinary citizens standing up to government overreach. Libertarians often get discouraged because its so difficult electing Libertarians to high office. But what Angela McArdle and her friends did shows how city governments can be tyrannical too, not just the Feds, and that We the People have power over the bureaucrats who want to rule us.

Im proud we were able to make a difference, McArdle says with a broad smile, but even if the motion had passed, I would have broken that law a hundred times. Now thats the spirit! Not surprisingly, McArdle found a home for her activism in the Libertarian Party.

activismActivisthomelesshomelessnessLos Angeleslos angeles times

Continue reading here:

Feeding the Homeless: Activist Stands Up to City Government - The Libertarian Republic

Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rankled many libertarians with his vote to confirm unreconstructed drug warrior and criminal justice reform opponent Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Last night, the libertarian-leaning senator answered those critics and explained his vote on Fox Business Network's Kennedy program:

I think personal considerations; I've known him for a long time. I didn't like the way Democrats vilified and tried to create him into some sort of racist monster, which is not who he is. So the fact that they used character assassination, I didn't want to be associated with that.

But I can tell people, libertarians across the country, that there is no stronger voice in the U.S. Senate for opposing militarization of the police, opposing the drug war, opposing the surveillance state. And so if people want to apply a purity test to me they're more than welcome, but I would suggest that maybe they spend some of their time on the other 99 less libertarian senators.

You can watch the whole interview, which covers angry constituent townhalls, Paul's Obamacare-replacement bill, and whether the left is developing its own version of the Tea Party, below:

Paul's vote, you'll recall, was also couched in his ongoing opposition to President Trump appointing Elliott Abrams to the number-two slot at the State Department, an effort that at minimum coincided with success.

Paul's confirmation strategery has received praise from W. James Antle III and a sympathetic ear from his former co-author Jack Hunter, while prompting a BuzzFeed News piece titled "How Rand Paul Is Navigating The Trump Presidency."

Reason on Jeff Sessions here, on Rand Paul here.

Read this article:

Rand Paul, to Libertarians Critical of His Sessions Vote: 'I would ... - Reason (blog)

Recently somebody posted this on FB:

It sparked a fascinating conversation:

Melody: Jesus was speaking to the individual, NOT the government. If your so concerned about refugees, then YOU need to get off your butt and go help them. Leave the safty of your country and go help them. Im tired of people using Jesus to justify more government control.

Dan: You are incorrect and B16 in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate more than denounces you. Then prior to that, there is PP and Mater et Magistra.

You need to learn your faith.

Melody: I know my Faith, I also know that The Catholic Faith (plus others) teaches that it is the individual NOT the government who is responsible for caring for humanity.

Mary: Melody we dont need to do a thing about abortion. Its an individual choice. Is this what you are saying?

Liz: I came to the same conclusion, Mary.

This is like a little microcosm of the American Church. Melody has absorbed the strange libertarian lie that that state is somehow free to ignore the natural law and do Whatever because the natural law applies only to individuals. She, of course, is thinking only of the gospel commands about care for the least of these. And she relies on the lie that things like food, shelter, and elementary demands of basic justice to human beings are charity. She then proceeds to the lie that since these things are charity they are no business of the state.

But in fact, things like food, shelter, and health care are not charity. They are due human beings in justice and ensuring justice is precisely the task of the state. Therefore it is not either/or, but both/and. We are to personally care for the least of these. We are also to see to it that the state does too.

This is ironically illustrated by Mary, who takes Melody at her word and takes it to the conclusion the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife right ever seems to realize by pointing out that if the state is not supposed to help protect the human right of the least of these, then it follows that the whole point of the prolife struggle to get the state to stop its laissez faire approach to abortion is without foundation.

The great irony here is that Liz, a pro-choice atheist who has been rather shocked to discover she has a lot in common with a bunch of devout, Mass-going Catholics with strong empathy for the Catholic social justice tradition finds herself suddenly in bed with Melody, a libertarian, anti-abortion-but-not-prolife Catholic who mouths all the right wing excuses for ignoring the Church on everything but abortion.

I wrote them both and told them I hope they both feel exquisitely uncomfortable being in bed with one another. Liz, at any rate, has enough of a sense of humor to appreciate the irony of her predicament. Melody I dont know and am not sure if she even realizes that she just made the libertarian case for every pro-choice person on planet Earth. But Liz, I think, must realize that her pro-choice philosophy undergirds the libertarian case for the selfishness Melody is advocatinga selfishness Liz loathes.

The way out of their strange bedfellows dilemma is, of course, embrace of the complete and consistent Catholic ethic of life and rejection of the libertarianism they each selectively embrace.

No idea what will happen next.

Continued here:

Libertarians and Pro-Choice Advocates: Peas in a Pod - Patheos (blog)

Im A Libertarian Man, and I Support Feminism

I want to discuss a topic that I feel all libertarians should be supporters of Feminism! Lets face it, libertarians need to stop being so freaking anti-feminist, once and for all; though I think most libertarians are pro-feminist deep down inside. Feminism in its original meaning is 100% a libertarian/capitalist movement.

First off, lets just say why feminists in the original sense should hate government. Governments used to not allow women to own property or businesses of any kind. Literally setting it up so that (in many states) if a woman was married to a man, and didnt have a male son when the man died, she would likely be forced to give the business to the closest male relative, likely without any compensation for it.

For many years, women were not legally allowed to vote in America. Women were denied access to schools for most of history. Many governments would even be able to shut down a business just for hiring and using women workers, if complained about. Occupational licensing was made difficult to obtain, and women were denied the right to become things such as lawyers, doctors and more. Women were put in many situations where their property and rights werent respected. Up until the 1950s, many states didnt even care if a man casually beat his wife as long as no serious damage was caused.

There was a discriminatory agent around and, holy sh*t, it was the government. The government, being a male created tool which blocked womens rights (they did not have voting rights), created a male only majority that damaged the rights of women. They did this with Jim Crow; they did this to the Native American community; they did it to women; from this, its easy to say women were treated poorly by society and viewed as tools in male oppression.

We cant just say Oh, that was the past, today is what counts; Its called all f*cking history, compared to the last 50 damn years! For most of American history, women had very few rights compared to men. We did live in an anti-female society. In world history, for 99% of the time, women didnt have an equal say. We are living in the [maybe] .3% that they do. This is something I see libertarians pretend isnt the case and that is morally and historically just a total wasteland of wrong. What caused this to end? Well, like most problems, it was the market. Let me list what the market did to help womens rights.

Changes in Labor The movement of manual labor economies to white collar jobs: with the rise of technology, people arent cutting down trees, farming, or doing a lot of other jobs which, from a physical perspective, women arent as capable of doing. More people in the early 20th century moved into jobs where they worked in an office, developed things with their minds, and from that, the door was opened, and women were needed in that pool of the labor market.

Modern Medicine Another was the rise of modern medicine, and women not dying as frequently while giving birth. Everyone having a mom is new to history. If a person lived before the 20th century, there was a good chance their mom died giving birth to them, or giving birth to their siblings. The older women were, the more likely it was to happen. This is why women, for most of history, would be married at a very young age and asked to have children at about 15-18 years old. Modern medicine made it so that giving birth at age 30 isnt a death sentence anymore. This opens options for new career choices.

A Rise in Wealth and Education The rise of women in education and early careers, caused a rise in wealth. People had more money, and America got an expanded labor force, allowing for care services which make parenting while both parents work a real thing and not a financial impracticality. For the first time, it is profitable for both parents to work, even if that requires housekeeping or day care services. The market did something very new when it moved people away from farms and into cities. People came for factory jobs and, as the need for child labor dropped, the rise of public schools began. Women got the invite to join, and for the first time in history, lower, middle, and upper income girls were able to attend schools. This was likely the greatest thing ever to aid in the rise of women in the economy. Birth Control Birth control and the greatness of Roe vs Wade here is a simple fact, being pregnant as a choice rather than it being obligatory, is a great thing!

So where does this bring us?

Why are women still complaining?

Feminists do have a point, these problems exist, and there are two sets of solutions.

The first solution is culture: shows such as Jessica Jones, or Legend of Korra, that are geared towards a male audience but turn women into these non-sexualized, awesome characters (who say what theyd like, have relationships with who they want, and kick-ass) are honestly doing more to change the stigma in how men treat women than any protest has. Culture and actions in media are changing this culture to the benefit of women.

The second solution is capitalism: women make less than men on average due to chosen career paths? Libertarians have a solution for that eliminate government backed student loans. Banks will still loan money, but not to poorly performing majors and people will now financially be forced to pursue higher earning fields such as math or science. In this, they will also see a decline in older, lesser earning majors slowing down the new supply of labor in that pool and opening other options.

Women complain about birth control and abortion rights? Libertarian have a solution for that. Its called deregulation where birth control is easier to obtain and lower FDA times to get approvals on new drugs.

Women complain about men being abusive? Libertarians have a solution for that. Just imagine how much better the police would function without the war on drugs, without so much time/money going to victim-less crimes and more attention going to real abuses.

Libertarians have solutions to female problems, and female problems in culture do indeed exist. Why a woman gets called a slut for having sex with twenty people, but a man gets called awesome is confusing. Why so many parents tell their daughters to marry wealthy men at a young age is genuinely sad. Solutions do exist on both a personal and government level.

Im tired of libertarians failing and failing hard. We are turning our movement into something which sees Milo Yianhoweveryouspellit say women shouldnt pursue science and we go Hahaha thats funny! We are seeing many in the liberty movement casually bash feminist and instead of saying We see your problems as real, and we have answers for you! we stay in this male bubble of bashing women. Its why libertarians dont succeed. When we ignore the problems and just bash the idea that the problems exist we lose a voter! We lose a supporter! We lose a volunteer! We lose a libertarian! We create a communist!

So, I support feminism, and libertarianism is 100% a feminist friendly movement.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Read this article:

I'm a Libertarian Man, and I Support Feminism. - Being Libertarian

Former Libertarian presidential candidate and Missouri State alumus Austin Petersen was welcomed back to campus by the Missouri States Young Americans for Liberty on Thursday, Feb. 8.

According to the chapter president, sophomore history major Jaret Scharnhorst, Young Americans for Liberty is a nationwide organization that is focused on recruiting, training and educating students on the ideals of liberty and the Constitution.

Petersen opened his talk by throwing in a little humor as he talked about the ideals of the Libertarian Party.

Here is being a Libertarian in a nutshell, I just want gay married couples to be able to guard their marijuana fields with automatic rifles, Petersen said.

Petersen graduated from Missouri State in 2004, majoring in musical theatre. In 2016, Petersen ran for president of the United States with the Libertarian Party. He became the runner-up for the nomination to the governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson.

After graduating from MSU, he moved to New York to become an actor where he noticed that the taxes were quite high. He said he noticed even with the little money that actors make, the government still took quite a bit out.

This is what sparked Petersens interest in politics. Before he knew it, he was working his way up the ladder in Washington D.C.

About a year later, he said he saw that his preferred candidate for the Republican Party, Rand Paul, was probably not going to make it through the primary. So, he decided to take matters into his own hands.

I thought to myself, If he did not make it to the primary, then there would not be someone who embodied my beliefs, Petersen said, So, I thought, Well Im turning 35 this year, (and) I am constitutionally eligible, so I decided to throw my hat into the ring.

In his speech, Petersen talked about Libertarian ideals and how they differ from those of Republicans and Democrats.

You know with this past election having two not very popular candidates, people are looking to third parties now more than ever, Petersen said.

Petersen also covered a wide array of controversial issues that surround this nation today, one of those being the War on Drugs.

One of the first things that I would do would be to abolish the War on Drugs completely, Petersen said. The reason drugs are dangerous is because they are illegal. Doing drugs is a victimless crime. So, yes, I do believe that heroin should be legal, that way we are able to study it. If we do that, Im sure that once people realize how bad it is for you, the usage of the drug will go way down.

Scharnhorst said he believes that bringing in Petersen will do great things for the organization

You know bringing in a person of Austins caliber is a really big deal, Scharnhorst said. If you tell people that you have a presidential candidate, and MSU alum come and speak, that will really get people to come out to hear his message and our message as well.

Justin Orf, senior political science major, was in the audience during Petersens speech, and had good things to say about Petersen.

I really liked his speech, because it provides us with different viewpoints, Orf said. College Republicans and Libertarians have similar views on less government, so it is pretty cool to see that connection. But it also shows us how Libertarians diverge a bit from normal conservatism.

As Petersen concluded his speech, he said the sole role of government should be to protect citizens liberties.

Read the original post:

Former Libertarian presidential candidate visits alma mater - Standard Online

In the midst of what should have been (if not for the populist political revolts of 2016) the dawn of a Clinton presidency, I find it surreal I lament that the very woman I detest will not be leading the American nation for the next four to eight years.

There, I have said it. Mere months after her exit from the political arena, I most sincerely miss Hillary Clinton.

She was corrupt, uninspiring, and had been part of the political establishment for so long she became their most notorious poster child. Yet, for all her faults she successfully kept radical, progressive, democratic-socialism at bay in the 2016 elections.

She defeated Bernie Sanders, but another prodigy of the left is waiting in the wings. That looming figure, of course, is none other than Senator Elizabeth Warren. The very senator who recently found herself subject to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells blundered attempt to silence her during debate on Senator Jeff Sessions confirmation as Attorney General. This monumental mistake on part of the Republican leadership has now only thrown her further into the liberal progressive spotlight that was already warming towards her.

The Democrats, particularly the partys most vocal and active progressive wing, are bitter and seething with contempt, and angered with their own party that took actions to suppress socialist Bernie Sanders during the primaries, and angered with the larger American electorate, who denied them the chance to coronate their queen um, I mean, elect the first female President.

With Warren, they have the chance to right both of these perceived wrongs cast upon them; if they are successful, the policies sure to be enacted by a Warren presidency would turn any foe of Clinton from the chant of Lock Her Up! to Im With Her!

Clinton supported increasing the federal minimum wage to $12, and luke-warmly supported local and state attempts to increase it to $15, while Senator Warren highlighted in 2013 that the minimum wage should be at $22+ if it were continually tied to the standard of living.

Clinton, a staunch supporter of entitlement spending, such as Social Security, was pragmatic enough to not completely rule out the possibilities of cuts or restructuring the system. By contrast, Warren is a hardliner who not only refuses to cut or restructure Social Security, but wishes to expand the program already operating under financial strain.

Clinton was reluctant to withdraw her support of trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and once in office would likely have waffled on doing anything about stopping them, while Warren was a fierce advocate against them. This comes at a time when the Republican Party has become skeptical of trade under the leadership of President Donald Trump. Losing even more ground for pro-trade ideals could threaten our national economy, which even I, who am critical of multi-lateral trade deals, admit could be a problem, because a counterbalancing view always helps moderate extremes, in this case extremes of economic protectionism.

So while we all loved to hate her, Hillary Clinton may soon become a name we fondly look back upon. What strange times in which we find ourselves.

This post was written by Bric Butler.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Read the rest here:

The New Nasty Woman: We Will Miss the Old One - Being Libertarian

The White House has riled the country's civil libertarian wing after President Trump enthusiastically voiced support for a controversial law enforcement tool that allows an individuals property or assets to be seized without a guilty verdict.

The president weighed in on what's known as "civil asset forfeiture" during an Oval Office meeting last week with sheriffs. Thepresident, who ran on a law-and-order message, said he shared their desire to strengthen the practice and even said he would destroy the career of a Texas politician trying to end it.

The comments revived tensions with libertarians who have been fighting the practice under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Already piqued by the selection of former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a vocal supporter of asset forfeiture, to lead the Justice Department, the Libertarian Party itself condemned the comments.

It was really disappointing to hear those words. He campaigned on the idea of helping people who are on the low end of the economic spectrum and this [law] disproportionately affects minorities and those who do not have the means to hire an attorney, Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark told Fox News.

Sarwark called the practice "immoral," adding that it is simply government theft of individual property that flips the nations legal system on its head.

While laws differ across the country, most states allow law enforcement to seize an individuals assets or property on the suspicion they have been involved in criminal activity. Even if a person is found to be not guilty, some jurisdictions allow the government to keep their property.

Sheriff John Aubrey of Louisville, Ky., said he was heartened by his meeting with Trump because he, unlike the last administration, will give them a "fair hearing" on asset forfeiture.

He also believes there is a misconception that police just take property but stressed that they cannot do so before gettinga court order.

Trump signaled he would fight reform efforts in Congress, saying politicians could get beat up really badly by the voters if they pursue laws to limit police authority.

The comments could signal an abrupt halt to efforts to curb the practice under the Obama administration, which also had faced heavy criticism from civil libertarians and criminal justice reform advocates.

Brittany Hunter of the free-market Foundation for Economic Education wrote that the presidents egregious comments effectively destroy any hope that his administration will be better on this issue than President Obama. In fact, the situation may very well become worse.

According to the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law firm, the Department of Justices Assets Forfeiture Fund generated $93.7 million in revenue in 1986. By 2014, the annual figure had reached $4.5 billion -- a 4,667 percent increase. The practice surged for years under the Obama administration.

While critics believe the policy creates a profit incentive for law enforcement, police organizations say it is an important tool and charges of abuse have been blown out of proportion.

There are those who see an incident of one and want to apply the rule of many, but we have found the annual number of incidents [of abuse] is miniscule, Jonathan Thompson of the National Sheriffs Association told Fox News.

Thompson said the issue was addressed in a conversation with Sessions, who views it as a priority, and he believes the Trump administration will be more supportive than the Obama administration in lifting the burden on local law enforcement.

He added that law enforcement are not opposed to reforms and that he plans to keep his focus on increasing independent judicial review and transparency.

Candidates running on the Libertarian ticket in the midterm elections are likely to make Trumps record on criminal justice reform and the Sessions selection an issue, in a bid to peel off voters from across the political spectrum.

Our candidates will make [asset forfeiture] an issue for Republicans and Democrats on the state and federal level in 2018. We will make them answer to voters on these issues, Sarwark warned.

Many of the states key to Trumps victory have passed reforms.

Last year, Ohio passed a law that prohibits taking assets valued at less than $15,000 without a criminal conviction. Other states also passed differing degrees of reform, including New Hampshire, Florida, Montana, Nebraska, Minnesota, Maryland and New Mexico.

Largely an uncontroversial issue for decades, the governments war on drugs in the 1980s led to its rapid expansion, but media coverage of abuses has led to a public blowback.

A 2015 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), found that of those Philadelphia residents who had their assets taken, nearly one-third were never convicted of a crime and that almost 60 percent of cash seizures were for amounts less than $250.

Civil asset forfeiture reform is an area where you cannot ignore the public demand, said Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Read more:

Libertarians split with Trump over controversial police tactic | Fox News - Fox News

My thirties started off in countries ravaged by environmental destruction and dictatorships. Back then, I was a journalist for National Geographic, spending most of my time abroad, even though I still called Los Angelesmy birth cityhome. In the 100+ countries I visited, I reported on some harrowing stories: the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the near total deforestation of Paraguay, and the tense nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. I always hoped my words and on-camera television commentary brought some sanity and peace to the chaos.

While on assignment in Vietnam near the demilitarized zone, a near-miss with a landmine that could have been catastrophic sent me back home to the safety of the United States. Desiring stability, I started a real-estate development business with capital saved from my journalism. America was booming and my business thrived. I soon sold most of my real-estate portfolio, allowing me to live off my long-term investments.

I was lucky, for sure. Only a year later, I watched America, its banking system, and its real-estate market collapse. I watched friends lose everything, and my government try to fix something it had partially caused. The lessonsthe distrust of big government, crony capitalism and unmanageable debtseared themselves into my value system.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Zoltan Istvan and Libertarian candidate John McAfee stand next to the Immortality Bus in Charlotte, North Carolina, December 5, 2015. The pair met while on the U.S. presidential campaign trail. Anthony Cuthbertson

Like many entrepreneurs, I became a libertarian because of one simple concept: reason. It just made sense to embrace a philosophy that promotes maximum freedom and personal accountability. Hands off was my mottoand in business, if you wanted to succeed, those words are sacred. But hands off applies to more than just good entrepreneurial economics. It applies to social life, politics, culture, religion, and especially how innovation occurs.

Ive been a passionate science and technology guyan advocate of radical innovationever since I can remember. In college, I focused on the ethics and challenges of science for my Philosophy degree. But my stories for National Geographic and my witnessing of the Great Recession viscerally reminded me that government and the growing fundamentalism in Congress was desperately trying to control innovation and progresseven at the expense of peoples health, safety, and prosperity. With plenty of free time after the sale of my business to mount a challenge, I decided to use my writing skills to fight this backward thinking.

I began penning The Transhumanist Wager, a philosophical novel published in 2013 that blasts Luddism. The controversial libertarian-minded manifesto has now been compared to Ayn Rands work hundreds of times in reviewsthough I often point out my book is quite different to Atlas Shrugged. Nonetheless, the popularity of my novel thrust me into the radical science and tech movement as a public figure, whose main hub was right where I live in the San Francisco Bay area.

Looking for a way to take science and technology into the political realm, I decided to make a run for the U.S. presidency in 2016 as the self-described science candidate. I knew I couldnt win the election, but it was a great way to awaken many Americans to the desperate plight of our countrys increasingly stifled science and innovation sector. My experience in media has helped propel my candidacy. I spoke at the World Bank, appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, was interviewed by the hacker collective Anonymous, and consulted for the U.S. Navy about technology, among other things. Even 2016 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson invited me to interview as his possible vice president. Alone in his New Mexico house, we talked shop for 24 hours solid. He chose Governor Bill Weld as his VP, but I left Johnson knowing I would soon be making a stand for the Libertarian Party.

Due to the fact I was arguably the first visible science presidential candidate in American history, I ran a very centric, science and tech-oriented platform, one that was designed to be as inclusive of as many political lines as possible. With leadership comes some compromise, and I veered both right and left (mostly left) to try to satisfy as many people as I could, even when it meant going against some of my own personal opinions. I believe a politician represents the people, and he or she must never forget thator forget the honor that such a task carries.

The front view of California State Capitol. Zoltan Istvan has announced he is to run for California governor in 2018. David Fulmer/ Creative Commons

One thing I didnt stray from was my belief that everything could be solved best by the scientific methodthe bastion of reason that says a thing or idea works only if you can prove it again and again via objective, independent evaluation. Ill always be a pragmatic rationalist, and reason to me is the primary motivator when considering how to tackle problems, social or otherwise. I continue to passionately believe in the promise of using reason, science and technology to better California and the world. After all, the standard of living has been going up around the globe because of a singular factor: more people have access to new science and technology than ever before. Nothing moves the world forward like innovation does.

Yet, in the political climate of 2017, few things seem more at risk as innovation. A conservative, religious government stands to overwhelm California with worries about radical tech and science, such as implementing Federal regulation that stifles artificial intelligence, driverless cars, stem cells, drones, and genetic editing.

Sadly, the same could be said of immigration, womens rights, and environmental issues. Then theres Americas move towards expanding its already overly expensive military, which you and I pay for out of our pockets so that generals can fight far-off wars. America can do better than this. California can do better than this.

And we must. After all, the world is changingand changing quite dramatically. Even libertarians like me face the real possibility that capitalism and job competitionwhich we always advocated forwont survive into the next few decades because of widespread automation and the proliferation of robot workers. Then theres the burgeoning dilemma of cyber security and unwanted tracking of the technology that citizens use. And what of augmenting intelligence via genetic editingsomething the Chinese are leading the charge on, but most Americans seem too afraid to try? In short, what can be done to ensure the best future?

Much can be done. And I believe it can all be done best via a libertarian framework, which is precisely why I am declaring my run for 2018 California governor. We need leadership that is willing to use radical science, technology, and innovationwhat California is famous forto benefit us all. We need someone with the nerve to risk the tremendous possibilities to save the environment through bioengineering, to end cancer by seeking a vaccine or a gene-editing solution for it, to embrace startups that will take California from the worlds 7th largest economy to maybe even the largest economybigger than the rest of America altogether. And believe me when I say this is possible: artificial intelligence and genetic editing will become some of the first multi-trillion dollar businesses in the near future.

We can do this, California, and it doesnt have to be through stale blue or red political parties, which have left many of us aghast at the current world. It can be done through the libertarian philosophy of embracing all that is the most inventive and unbridled in usand letting that pave the way forward. A challenging future awaits us, but we can meet it head on and lead the way not just for California and America, but for all of humanity.

Zoltan Istvan is a futurist and ran in the 2016 U.S. presidential election as a candidate of the Transhumanist Party.

See the original post here:

Why I'm Running for California Governor as a Libertarian - Newsweek - Newsweek

WICHITA, Kan. (KSNW) The Kansas Libertarian Party has nominated Chris Rockhold to replace Mike Pompeos 4th District congressional seat.

Pompeo has been tabbed by President Donald Trump to run the CIA.

Rockhold is a flight instructor for FlightSafety. In a 17-3 vote, Rockhold won over former Libertarian presidential candidateGordon Bakken.

The nominee will join Ron Estes andJames Thompson in a special election for the 4th District seat.

The election will be on April 11.

Republicans have represented the district since Todd Tiahrt unseated veteran Democratic Rep. Dan Glickman in 1994.

Like Loading...

KSN.com provides commenting to allow for constructive discussion on the stories we cover. In order to comment here, you acknowledge you have read and agreed to our Terms of Service. Commenters who violate these terms, including use of vulgar language, racial slurs or consistent name calling will be banned. Please be respectful of the opinions of others. If you see an inappropriate comment, please flag it for our moderators to review.

Read the rest here:

Kansas Libertarians nominate Chris Rockhold for 4th District seat - KSN-TV

Switzerland voted to ease the citizenship process for third-generation immigrants on Sunday, going against the anti-immigration sentiment that has swept Western Europe in recent years.

Over 60% of votes were in favor of the nationwide referendum, which eases,via constitutional amendment, the stringent citizenship requirements for third-generation Swiss immigrants.

Swiss law previously required immigrants to live within Switzerland for at least twelve years before having the ability to apply for citizenship, after passing a series of tests and suitability measures. The referendum doesnt alter these existing laws; rather, the referendum speeds up the process by creating a set of uniform criteria that would apply to third-generation immigrants.

Applicants are still required to prove they are 25 years of age or older, were born in Switzerland, attended school within the country for a minimum of five years, share Swiss cultural values, speak a national language (either French, Romansh, German, or Italian) and do not depend on state aid.

These restrictions are still fairly tight, which wasnt apparent in the public debate. The contentious debate centered around a poster of a woman in a niqab with the caption uncontrolled citizenship, when, in fact, the referendum still leaves a lot of strictrequirements in place for citizenship to be attained, which still restrict and/or prevent freedom of movement.

Research by Geneva University, done specifically for the government, suggests that around 25,000 people will benefit from these adjustments.

Prior to the vote, the right-wing Peoples Party came out in impassioned opposition of this bill.

In one or two generations, who will these third-generation foreigners be? cautioned Jean-Luc Addor, a lawmaker for the party.They will be born of the Arab Spring, they will be from sub-Saharan Africa, the Horn of Africa, Syria or Afghanistan.

We dont see any reason whatsoever to make [immigration] easier, said Luzi Stamm, a legislator also from the Peoples Party. The movement of people in the world has increased considerablyYou have an increased probability of problem-makers coming here.

The only fast-track route to citizenship that has existed in Switzerland applies to foreigners who had been married to Swiss citizens for more than six years, including those who have never lived in the country.

Photo Credit:Komitee Gegen Erleichterte Einbuergerung (Committee Against Facilitated Naturalization)

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...

Continue reading here:

Switzerland Votes In Favor of Easier Citizenship Process - Being Libertarian

Libertarians, in general terms, have long supported legalization and/or decriminalization of drugs, and there seems to be growing support in the American population for these ideas.

One example is the developments in the State of Oklahoma a very conservative State that, in the past, held strongly to sentiment of more severe punishment for all crimes, including criminal possession and distribution of drugs.

A Governor-appointed task force recently finished up its report on reducing prison populations in the state.

Oklahoma currently ranks second in the nation for incarceration rates, with a prison population at 109%, which is the highest in the country. With an additional 7,200 inmates expected in the next ten years (and a dramatically increasing budget deficit), Oklahoma is desperate to reduce its inmate population.

In November of 2016, two state questions were approved by voters: one which reduces possession of small amounts of drugs and stolen property to a misdemeanor, instead of a felony; and one which provides funding to mental health and drug addiction treatment services for minor offenders.

Efforts are underway from a small number of state legislators to overturn the decision of voters, but will likely fail. In addition to these measures, the task force, ordered [by Governor Mary Fallin] to find solutions to the incarceration rate, made its recommendations. They are also mostly leaning toward easing sentencing for small time drug offenders.

The task force believes that, if their recommendations are followed, the prison population can be reduced by 7% over the next ten years through a combination of measures that include: sentence reductions, and funding for additional mental health and drug addiction treatment.

Even this does not reduce the population enough, but it is certainly a start in the right direction.

The task force has recommended that sentencing for possession, with intent to distribute, of meth, crack, or heroin should be reduced to 0 5 years; down from 5 years to life for first time, non-violent offenders. Also, inmates are to become eligible for parole after serving just 1/4 of their sentence, rather than the current 1/3.

There have also been changes implemented at a more local level. In Oklahoma County (the most populated county in the state and host to Oklahoma City), Commissioner Brian Maughan introduced the SHINE program in 2010. The program offers opportunities for voluntary work, but it is also a program which acts as alternative sentencing for small crimes: such as possession of drugs with intent to distribute, in cases where there are relatively small amounts of drugs being carried.

It is a community service program whereby community service can be served in lieu of jail or prison time; with many community projects targeted primarily at cleaning up the county and beautifying blighted areas.

The states other counties have been considering similar programs that work in conjunction with drug courts and offer alternatives to sentencing such as: mental health services and addiction treatment for those guilty of possession of illegal substances, or driving under the influence (DUI).

Oklahoma is justified in these efforts. Since 2010, 31 states have managed to decrease incarceration rates, while at the same time reducing crime rates. There has been a change in attitudes across the United States regarding smaller drug offenses that has been building over the past decade. With cannabis consumption legalized to various degrees in many states, prison populations (as well as crime rates in general) have been decreasing.

There have not only been a decrease in crimes related to drug possession but also in property crimes (on the order of 2% to 3.5%), as well as homicides (on the order of 12% to 19%) in the States that have implemented programs in reduced sentencing or decriminalization.

Going forward, it is likely the trend of reduced sentencing for small time drug offenders will continue, as will a wave of decriminalization. With so many States and local governments considering such measures to reduce incarceration rates in tremendously overcrowded prison populations, that are becoming unsustainable, it wont be long before the Federal Government follows suit for the same reasons. It remains to be seen whether the current administration is supportive. But for now, it looks as though that it is not a priority.

However, it is very early, much too early to tell.

This post was written by Danny Chabino.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

See the article here:

Reduced Sentences Trending in Oklahoma - Being Libertarian (satire)

Wichita Eagle

Chris Rockhold earns Libertarian nod for 4th District special election Wichita Eagle Chris Rockhold was selected Saturday by a small group of Libertarians to be the party's standard bearer in a special election scheduled for April 11 to fill a vacancy for the Kansas 4th Congressional District. The seat was vacated when Republican Mike ... Chris Rockhold selected as Libertarian nominee for Special Election 2017KWCH Kansas Libertarians nominate Chris Rockhold for 4th district seat.KSN-TV Kansas Libertarians nominate Chris Rockhold for 4th districtKSNT The Daily Progress all 6 news articles »

Read this article:

Chris Rockhold earns Libertarian nod for 4th District special election - Wichita Eagle

An eternal problem for Libertarian candidates is that they are not taken seriously. This is in part the product of the psychological and institutional duopoly created by the Democratic and Republican parties across the United States. Yet, it is also the product of never running candidates with serious name recognition in their own rights. That should change in 2018.

We should run for Governor of Nevada.

Penn Jillette has a mainstream profile in Nevada, and the broader country, that even the most influential libertarians can only dream of. As a magician and television personality, Jillette has built a dedicated following and a general reputation for intelligence and cleverness. He has also been a vocal advocate for libertarian principles on stage and screen, enough to earn him a position as a fellow of the Cato Institute.

In 2016, Jillette stepped up his involvement in the Libertarian Party proper. He moderated a presidential debate and was a firm advocate of Gary Johnsons campaign. Now he has to be convinced to run in his own right.

Nevada has always had a deep libertarian streak. From gambling to prostitution, the good citizens of Nevada have preferred a live and let live philosophy of governance. A Libertarian candidate could leverage that spirit and find points of difference from either major party.

The popular Republican Governor Brian Sandoval is term-limited, and his potential replacements are not nearly so exciting to Nevada voters. Meanwhile, the Nevada Democratic Party is fairly strong, thanks in large part to the electoral machine created by former Senate leader Harry Reid. As the GOP is saddled with a Trump administration that seems hell-bent on alienating the Latino community, and a Democratic Party ever more committed to nanny-state progressivism, Penn Jillette could be just the right man for the job of expressing and spreading a distinctly libertarian message.

Jillette has immediate name recognition and very significant personal financial resources, as well as a wide network of wealthy friends in the show business industry. There are few Libertarians who could boast either his profile or his resources. He has also been a Nevadan for many years, and has built rapport in the dominant industry sector.

Comedians and performers may seem like light-weights, yet Jillette has proven himself countless times to be both well-informed about, and gifted in communicating, ideas of liberty. And it is hardly without precedent. Al Franken, the former Saturday Night Live performer, is currently a senator from Minnesota (and was even considered a dark horse candidate for Hillary Clintons running mate). Comedy can be persuasive and the ability to understand and play to a crowd are invaluable political skills, ones that Jillette clearly has in abundance.

If he could be convinced to run, it would be an opportunity for the party like never before. Our highest-profile candidates are usual on presidential ballots, but 2018 could provide the chance to make real electoral breakthrough. In our winner-take-all electoral system, we would only need to convince a plurality of voters. That is doable in a state like Nevada.

The problem, then, is getting Jillette to agree to run.

This is a mission the National Committee and Nevada state party ought to begin pursuing immediately. It would be a perfect chance to bring the disparate threads of party resources to bear on a key race. It should be treated like a presidential race, and be considered the cornerstone of a national campaign. Jillettes profile would garner national attention and could be leveraged to help down-ballot candidates and federal candidates in a few other prime target states.

Jillette would have to be convinced he could win. If the party worked to move volunteers and financial resources into the state to help that cause, he might well see it as a winnable opportunity.

Featured image: ComingSoon.Net

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Visit link:

Penn Jillette: The Ideal Libertarian Candidate - Being Libertarian

When you talk to people about the government, most of them immediately only think of the federal government, and the vast amount of departments that it compromises of in Washington D.C. But while that is one part of it, government is much more.

Government is also our state government. Government is also our county and city governments. More importantly, government, at any level, is not just the buildings or departments it comprises of however, but is, in fact, those people who inhabit the positions within those buildings and departments, from the federal level all the way down to your local municipalities. Yet most people in general dont think about it that way.

Even more importantly, governments are those people who enforce laws and regulations that have been legislated by governments at every level. Agents of the FBI, DEA, your local state, county and city law enforcement officers are all government as well.

Ive had conversations with many of my friends regarding this, and successfully changed their perspective on how they perceive what government is. As libertarians, this is an important step in removing the blindfold that most of our fellow citizens walk around with during their everyday lives, so they can realize governments unnecessary involvement in almost every single aspect of our lives, and how it perpetuates efforts successfully, mind you at controlling us in this invisible prison we live in. Libertarians, however, know better than this, and see it for what it is. Statism. Its that level of Stockholm syndrome that has set it, where our captors are the government, and the captives who embrace them; the citizenry.

Most people bow down at the alter of government like it is something to be loved and embraced, which we as libertarians refuse to, and for good reason. It is a foolish notion to love and embrace those who wield direct power and control over you. But the minute you suggest this to non-libertarians, they are shocked and appalled at the mere thought or mention of it. Why? How did we as a society become these zombie minded statist loving slaves who created our own prison by allowing government to run amuck? I suggest the answer is decades of indoctrinated education, or gradual indoctrination via scare tactics via rampant bombardment of how this and that are epidemics and we must pass more laws to stop it, constantly coming at us via various news networks and publications, often influenced heavily by whom? The government, of course.

Our parents followed the propaganda just as many do now and then taught us we should trust anyone with a badge. In fact, however, any good defense attorney in todays day and age would tell you the exact opposite. The reason is simple: They are a stranger, not your friend. so do not trust them. The second you open your mouth, anything and everything you say can and will be used against you. This is true even if you called them for help.

People today simply confuse patriotism the love of your country with statism, which means the love of your government. The two are not at all the same. I love my country, but I do not like my current government at all, and thats at every level. I do not need to be ruled, I am quite capable of living without government rule and interference in my personal life, as we all are. Most just dont realize it.

* Shane Foster has worked his entire career in military law enforcement, corrections, and as a private investigator. He has a unique perspective into how law enforcement operates from within its ranks, our judicial system, as well as our privacy laws and how every day our individual freedoms and liberties are gradually taken away from us and our individual rights abused on a regular basis.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

See original here:

Why the Confusion on What 'Government' Actually Is? - Being Libertarian

Forty years ago, four Brits in a band called the Sex Pistols outraged and angered the British political establishment. Now in 2017 another Brit has done the same thing to the U.S. establishment.

1977 was the year that punk exploded onto the cultural landscape and shook up the status quo of hippy music biz complacency and smug liberal assumptions. Were not into music, were into chaos, sneered the Sex Pistols as they shocked and awed the British public and challenged the old order.

The Pistols, The Clash, The Ramones and all those three-chord wonders with ripped jeans and spiked hair galvanized a generation. Not only rebelling against the stadium rock perpetuated by the likes of Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles and Pink Floyd, but also by criticizing their self-satisfied, Lear Jet lifestyles and their conventional viewpoints.

Led by their manager Malcolm McLaren, the Pistols used outrage and a Situationist agenda to confront the establishment, attack sacred idols and provoke all the right people. As McLaren once said, If it doesnt threaten the status quo, its not worth doing. The punk class of 77 angrily sang about the stupefying dullness of life in mid-70s Britain, the absurdity of pop stars and the conceits of the eras prevailing culture.

For many kids who felt disconnected from the mainstream, punk was a welcome reaction against the post-hippie and cultural malaise that had seeped into all aspects of 1970s society. But the punks also faced a backlash that was both widespread and violent, consisting of demonization from the media, gigs canceled or banned, assaults on punks by reactionary Teddy Boys, and low-key police harassment.

As a former punk myself, I remember being yelled at, spat on and punched in the face just for wearing a Sex Pistols God Save the Queen T-shirt.

Now, nearly four decades later, another establishment is being shaken up, but this time around its the cultural gatekeepers of liberal America who are finding their cosmopolitan we-know-best pieties challenged.

Another crucial difference from 77, of course, is that todays rebellion is more an overtly political one than a musical revolution. But the anti-authoritarian instincts of the original punks also fuel this current generation of free-thinkers.

Somewhat lazily dubbed by critics and some friends alike as the alt-right, this broad movement against liberal orthodoxy has as its unlikely figurehead the flamboyant British export Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial punk provocateur par excellence.

Yiannopoulos, with his calculated outrageousness and refusal to back down, seems well aware of the similarities between todays culture wars and the spirit of 77. During the 2016 presidential election he proclaimed, to cheers from his supporters, that we should vote for Donald Trump because he was the new punk.

In hindsight, it looks like he may have beenright in that comparison. After all, in a mainstream media world where it was assumed that no right-thinking person in America could ever vote for Trump, the actions of Yiannopoulos and his growing band of followers in backing such a controversial Republican candidate could only be seen as a Sid Vicious-style F**k You to political correctness and the established order.

Using social media instead of three-minute songs, Yiannopoulos has revolutionized the fight against political orthodoxy by using the same shock tactics that the punks used to take on the entertainment industry.

It should be noted that the American genesis of this new breed of conservative provocateurs that Milo seems to have galvanized actually has its roots in the South Park Conservatives generation, which moved from left to right after 9/11 as the left became increasingly politically correct and authoritarian.

Like the punks of 77, Milo and his merry band are also demonized by the media and also face assault from reactionary elementsas the recent riot that led to a cancelation of a Yiannopoulos event at the University of California-Berkeley goes to show.

In much the same way as the punk-bashing British Teddy Boys of 40years ago sided with the status quo, so the antifa have allied themselves with the American status quo against the new rebels on the block.

In fact, by being on the same side of the anti-Milo debate as the establishment liberal bastions of the New York Times, California hi-tech billionairesand pampered Hollywood one percenters, the antifa have only confirmed Yiannopoulos and the new anti-authoritarians as underdogs and the real inheritors of the rebellious punk mantle.

And just as the British media lambasted Johnny Rotten for his supposed attacks against the Queen and all common decency, so the American media has run endless critical stories on how Milo is slaughtering the sacred cows of open borders, feminism and the Black Lives Matter movement.

What happens next is anybodys guess. Will Milo and this new movement implode as the Sex Pistols did? Will the opposition to them prove too strong to overcome? Will they be absorbed into a new political mainstream?

Anything is possible but right now, just as in the halcyon days of punk, and whether one agrees with him or not, theres no denying that Milo, like the Sex Pistols before him, is riding the wave of the new zeitgeist.

God Save the Queen!

Read more:

How Milo and the Free Speech Libertarian Movement Resemble the Sex Pistols - Heat Street

The only difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, according to a local political activist, is that each promotes a different brand of diet soda.

Some of us want to drink ice water, said Bryan Jack Holder of Council Bluffs.

Thats why he joined the Iowa Libertarian Party, which is expected to earn political party status in the state in a few weeks.

Ive been following politics most of my adult life, and there are many like myself that dont fit in with either of the major political parties, said Holder, who ran for the U.S. House last year as a Libertarian. Some of us dont like to be put in a box.

More and more people seem to be in agreement as membership in the party has skyrocketed in just five years, according to Council Bluffs resident Jake Porter, the partys newly named executive director.

Currently, the number of Libertarian registered voters in Iowa is approaching 10,000, compared to less than 2,000 in 2012, Porter said. According to the Iowa Secretary of States office, 9,035 active voters are registered as Libertarians.

These people are seeking maximum freedom, which is what the party stands for, Porter said.

Its the ability to live your life as you choose as long as you are not harming anyone else, he said. We support fewer taxes, fewer regulations on smaller businesses and more personal freedom. The nature of government is to take away freedom. The Libertarian Party is trying to get some of those freedoms back.

Holder, who said hes not surprised by the partys growth, had similar views.

I dont think government should be in our bedrooms, bank accounts, our gun safes or in our communications, he said.

Last year, more Libertarians ran for political office than ever before, according to Porter.

One of those who ran was Gary Johnson, the partys presidential candidate. Johnson received 3.8 percent of the total presidential vote in Iowa, slightly more than the 3.3 percent he received nationally.

Because of this performance, the Libertarian Party earned political party status, which occurs when a partys presidential candidate receives more than 2 percent of the vote in Iowa. The necessary paperwork to obtain this status has been filed with the Iowa Secretary of States office and should become official around March 1, Porter said.

I dont see any issues with it, he said of the paperwork.

Political party status is a legal definition established by Iowa Code that allows the party certain privileges, including the ability to participate in primary elections. With party status, Iowa Libertarians will be able to vote for Libertarian candidates in the 2018 primaries.

Holding primary elections has its advantages, said Keith Laube, chairman of the Iowa Libertarian Party.

Having our candidates be part of the primary election will allow voters to become familiar with our candidates earlier in the election season, Laube said through his office. 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. Having more candidates share their ideas by being involved in the entire election cycle is good for Iowa.

Holder said he plans to run again for Congress next year. Porter also didnt rule out party candidates running in this years Council Bluffs City Council election, which is a nonpartisan race.

Having political party status also adds more credibility when these candidates seek a place in political debates, Porter said, adding there should be no shortage of party candidates in the 2018 election.

We think we will have at least 50 candidates for county, the state Legislature, the governors race and for Congress, he said.

Group plans for expanded candidate slate in 2018 after seeing growth in registration numbers

View original post here:

Libertarians set to become official political party in Iowa - The Daily Nonpareil

I had the pleasure of hosting British financier James Arnold at our presidential Inauguration. Mr. Arnold, a keen observer of American politics, has been rightly concerned for the last several years about the chill in our two nation's Special Relationship.

After enjoying the inauguration and our nation's peaceful transfer of power, we attempted to make our way to a parade viewing party on Pennsylvania Avenue. What should have been a painless trip across town quickly became a prime example of how unhinged the far left has become. Along the way we witnessed smashed cars, broken windows, a fire, and were called names and threatened simply because of how we were dressed; so much for tolerance and acceptance.

After arriving at the parade, we had the pleasure of running into former Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld. Governor Weld, much like current Governor Charlie Baker, was extremely effective and amazingly popular in deep blue Massachusetts. However, Governor Weld is best know today as the well-informed half of the Johnson-Weld presidential ticket. He was the one who actually knew what Aleppo was.

In our conversation, Governor Weld brought up a fascinating point, a point that has been largely overlooked in the reams of post election analysis. Governor Weld said that Johnson-Weld internal polling showed that 75 percent of their voters would have voted for Donald Trump had they not been in the race. The Libertarian ticket received nearly 4.5 million total votes in the election. It makes logical sense that three fourths of these voters, drawn to a ticket of former, successful two-term Republican Governors, would be more attracted to limited government advocates promising change from the last eight years. In addition, they saw absolutely no appetite amongst their limited government voters to support the Clinton-Kaine ticket.

In short, if the Johnson-Weld ticket had not run, Donald Trump would have won the popular vote. Given the Green Party's anemic showing and its great reluctance to support Hillary Clinton under any circumstance, it is very likely Donald Trump would have still won the popular vote even if the Green Party failed to field a candidate. In addition, Mr. Trump would have rolled up an even larger Electoral College margin, as the additional votes would have likely flipped New Hampshire, Maine, and Minnesota to his column.

No one can describe Governor Weld as an apologist for Mr. Trump. Just as no one can question Weld's political acumen and integrity. Mr. Arnold and I walked away impressed that the good governor had made an extremely strong case for his argument and that we had just been told an unreported gem from the 2016 election.

These will be difficult facts to grapple with for people whose solution to losing an election is to riot and to attempt to intimidate. Given the events of the last couple weeks, I suspect there will be more ridiculous hats, vulgar signs, and vandalism. Undoubtedly, swing voters and Blue Collar Democrats (Joe Biden Democrats) who gave President Trump their vote this election were disgusted by the far left's childish tantrum. If this continues, it is likely that an even larger cross-section of American voters will be willing to put the Democratic Party in another four-year "timeout" come 2020.

Tom Ross is a former chairman of the Delaware State Republican Party.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Chairman thanked Supreme Court nominee for going to "great lengths" to fulfilling the wishes of committee.

02/11/17 12:36 PM

Top Story

The executive order gives departments 90 days to review screening measures.

02/11/17 12:33 AM

See the original post:

Libertarian ticket cost Trump the popular vote | Washington Examiner - Washington Examiner

By Zach Foster

A libertarian brother from the Mises Cuba Institute notified me shortly after two Cuban libertarian activists were arrested by State Security officersthe political secret police. Mises Cuba, Mises USA, and the PanAm Post all confirmed that Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez Visea were both arrested in the last week. Other members of Mises Cuba were also threatened with arrest by the political police.

The two men were arrested together. Reportedly, they were approached by several plain-clothes undercover secret policemen. The secret policemen harassed the two men and arrested the activists when they refused to show ID to non-uniformed officers. Herrera and Velasques are still detained.

The American Mises Institute commented: At a time when interest in the works of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School is growing in developing nations, this arrest is a solemn reminder of the incredible courage of those spreading ideas in countries where governments routinely crack down on political opposition.

Responding to a request for comment,Libertarian Party of Nevada Chairman Jason Smith and Vice Chairman David Colborne both expressed shock at the arrest and they condemn the Cuban government for this abuse against civil liberties and basic human rights. This morning, LP Nevada released a press release in English and in Spanishofficially protesting the arrest and indefinite detention of Herrera and Velasquez and demanding their immediate safe release.

Since the War on Terror heated up, libertarians have been fighting and campaigning against indefinite detention. The liberty movement in 2012 vehemently opposed the National Defense Authorization Act specifically for the indefinite detention clause. This same fate is exactly what the Cuban libertarian activists are facing now.

Libertarians everywhere should join in denouncing the unjust actions of the Cuban regime and demand that the two political prisoners be released immediately. Cuban goods should be boycotted. People from around the world need to be putting pressure on their own governments to put political pressure on Cuba, while themselves putting economic pressure on Cuba.

This is a time when we libertarians need to stand in solidarity with Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velasquez Visea. What happened to these men in Cuba can still happen in the United States, especially with a presidential cabinet stacked with authoritarians like Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions. Rounding out the authoritarian curve is President Trump and his love for executive orders.

We the People need to keep protesting and pressuring our own government to respect our civil liberties, but that doesnt mean we cant scream and shout when it happens in places like Cuba. After all, while Americans fear their government arbitrarily jailing political opponents, it actually happens in Cuba. Driving it closer to home, these men are libertarian activists. They were thrown in jail for exactly the type of nonviolent education and discussion that people reading this have done countless times without even a second thought.

The jailed Cuban libertarian activists are political prisoners and State Security is holding themwithout a trial. This is antithetical to freedom. It would be the same whether the Cuban regime jailed Cuban libertarian activists or whether a right-wing regime jailed socialist labor union organizers. There are some things a human being just doesnt have the right to do to another human being.

There can be no justice in Cuba until the two Cuban libertarian activists are released safe and sound. We can only hope State Security hasnt brutalized them the way theyve brutalized countless of the nameless Cuban peasants unlucky enough to be suspected of crimes against the state. Whats worse is how authoritarian governments like the Cuban regime usually accuse political dissidents not of crimes against the state, but against the people.

CommunismCubaHuman rightsMises Institute

Read the rest here:

Free the Cuban Libertarian Activists! - The Libertarian Republic

Bill Weld should run for Governor of Connecticut in 2018.

This may seem like an odd proposition, but it is not an unreasonable one. Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy is the second most unpopular governor in the country and hes tarred the Democratic Party in the state with his poor record, guaranteeing a Democratic defeat come 2018. The question thus becomes who the Republican candidate will be, and thats where the opportunity lies. There is something of a deficit of talent in the Connecticut GOP and Weld could very easily fill the void to produce a quick victory.

Linda McMahon, President Trumps Small Business Administration head, is one possibility, but she failed in two past Senate bids in the state and Trump is likely to be unpopular in very blue Connecticut. Tom Foley, former ambassador to Ireland, could try for a third bid for Governor but after two failed bids, in 2010 and 2014, its unlikely hell get a third nod. Mark Boughton, the mayor of Danbury, has already opened an exploratory committee for 2018 but has failed to clinch the nomination in two past attempts. Erin Stewart, the self-described fiscally conservative and socially moderate mayor of New Britain, is another possibility, but she has stated skepticism of her own prospects due to a competitive field, and has alluded to the legislature being an area of greater importance to her.

In a time when one of Connecticuts biggest issues is losing jobs to Massachusetts, a massively successful former Republican governor of Massachusetts would certainly stand out amongst the crowd.

Why Connecticut? It isnt just a matter of low hanging fruit for a Libertarian Party victory, but the state being particular receptive to a Weld candidacy. Bill Weld isnt some foreign entity in the state; he was governor of its neighbor to the north and a gubernatorial candidate for its much larger neighbor due west. In New England, Bill Weld is a local brand. Meanwhile Connecticut is particularly receptive to a renegade candidacy third party candidate Lowell Weicker won the governorship in 1990 on his A Connecticut Party ticket and Joe Lieberman won his Senate seat in 2006 as an Independent.

Meanwhile Connecticut is one of the few states in the union to have fusion laws which allow for candidates to run on multiple party lines, meaning Weld could easily run as a Libertarian and a Republican, something he might be inclined to do given that was his strategy in New York during his 2006 gubernatorial bid. Heck, given how Weicker and Lieberman both won in three-person races, its entirely possible that should Bill Weld run solely as a Libertarian, he could pull through against a very unpopular Democratic Party and a GOP that fails to put forward an effective candidate.

Having an incumbent Libertarian Party governor who has been executive of two states wouldnt be a bad thing come 2020 either.

Photo: Bob Mack /Florida Times-Union via AP

Jacob Linker is a Campus Coordinator with Students For Liberty and the State Chair of Young Americans for Liberty in his state.

Like Loading...

See more here:

2018: Bill Weld For Governor - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian