Monthly Archives: June 2020

The Air Force staff sergeant suspected of killing a Santa Cruz sheriff's deputy last Saturday and wounding another, as well as fatally shooting a federal security officer in Oakland on May 29, had been ranting on social media and making references to an extremist group that espouses anti-government, anti-law-enforcement views.

32-year-old Steven Carrillo is being arraigned today in Santa Cruz Superior Court, and on Thursday he was formally charged with murder, lying it wait, attempted murder, and multiple other charges and enhancements. He faces life in prison for the killing of 38-year-old Santa Cruz Sheriff's Sergeant Damon Gutzwiller.

According to court documents, per the Mercury News, Carrillo had recently been posting libertarian, anti-law-enforcement rhetoric on social media, and he seemed to have a particular vendetta against law enforcement in general. According to a former friend and fellow Air Force officer, Justin Ehrhardt, Carrillo specifically had aligned himself with the so-called "Boogaloo" movement, a far-right, citizen militia group composed partly of current and former military people who believe that an armed conflict with the government is on the horizon. And Ehrhardt speculated further that watching police use of force against unarmed demonstrators on the news during the week of George Floyd's death may have finally pushed Carrillo over the edge.

Federal prosecutors reportedly believe that Carrillo was also responsible for a shooting in Oakland on the night of May 29, during the height of protest activity there though the targets were two Homeland Security officers stationed outside the federal building in downtown Oakland who had nothing to do with the quelling of protests by police a few blocks away. 53-year-old David Patrick Underwood of Pinole was killed in that shooting.

Underwood, who was black and the sibling of Southern California congressional candidate Angela Underwood-Jacobs, was working as a federal security officer, and the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement calling the shooter an "assassin," and characterizing the act as "domestic terrorism."

Underwood-Jacobs, who is a Republican, complicated the political lines in the current national unrest in testimony earlier this week before the House Judiciary Committee. She spoke out against police brutality and the death of Floyd, but went on to condemn calls for defuning the police. And she said, it is "blatantly wrong to create an excuse out of discrimination and disparity, to loot and burn our communities, to kill our officers of the law."

My brother wore a uniform," she said, "and he wore that uniform proudly. Im wondering, where is the outrage for a fallen officer that also happens to be African American?"

Federal charges against Carrillo in the killing of Underwood and the wounding of another officer are expected to be filed in the coming days, but federal prosecutors have yet to confirm that Carrillo is a suspect in the shooting.

The only information that was publicly released in the case, along with a surveillance image, was that the shooter fired shots out of a white cargo van like the one that Carrillo owned, and like the one he ambushed the Santa Cruz officers with last Saturday.

Carrillo, who was stationed at Travis Air Force Base, was living with his father in Ben Lomond, where officers confronted him. They were responding to a call from a resident who said they had seen explosives and weaponry inside Carrillo's van.

Carrillo was heard by witnesses after the shooting, before he was detained, talking about being "tired of the duality." He scrawled a similar message (using the word "duopoly," possibly in reference to the two-party system) in blood on a vehicle before his arrest. He also wrote the word "boog," and the phrase, "I became unreasonable," which is a meme used by the Boogaloo group, referring to anti-government icon Marvin Heemeyer.

Previously: Air Force Officer Named In Killing of Santa Cruz Sheriff's Deputy May Be Linked to Killing of Federal Officer in Oakland

Here is the original post:

Santa Cruz Shooting Suspect Preached Libertarian Ideals, Was Pushed Over the Edge By Police Actions Against Protesters, Friends Say - SFist

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Libertarian think tanks are not commonly in the habit of sending out press releases praising Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), but that is exactly what happened Wednesday when the R Street Institute commended her call to remove Confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol.

Pelosi posted a letter she sent to Congress Joint Committee on the Library, the committee that oversees the management of the National Statuary Hall collection, to request that they direct the Architect of the Capitol to immediately take steps to remove from public display 11 statues representing Confederate soldiers and officials, including the President and Vice President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens.

Currently, the National Statuary Hall displays 102 statues, consisting of two statues donated by each of the fifty states, one from the District of Columbia, and one of Rosa Parks,who was added by an act of Congress in 2005, and her statue officially unveiled in 2013, the year she would have turned 100. The statue of Davis was donated by Mississippi and the statue of Stephens comes from Georgia.

The statues in the Capitol should embody our highest ideals as Americans, wrote Pelosi, expressing who we are and who we aspire to be as a nation. Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end are a grotesque affront to these ideals. Their statues pay homage to hate, not heritage. They must be removed.

R Street responded to Pelosis letter by releasing their own press release, applauding her decision.

In 2017, R Street President Eli Lehrer and Demand Progress Policy Director Daniel Schuman co-authored an op-ed calling for these Confederate statues to be removed from public view, and the legislatures of the states represented by those statues invited to nominate new ones.

Mediaite reached out to Lehrer for comment, and asked him about the uniqueness of his organization publicly praising one of Congress most prominent Democrats.

We thought it was important, explained Lehrer, because properly understood libertarianism and classical liberalism is about building a diverse society.

Freedom is important because it allows for diversity, he continued, and puttingsymbols of a cause that existed solely for the purpose of preserving slavery and white supremacy in the very center of American democracy is not consistent with classical liberal values.

Look, the cause for what the Confederacy stood slavery is the least libertarian thing imaginable.

Lehrer noted that the law requires a special act of Congress to actually remove the statues completely from the Capitol property and return them to their states (similar to the congressional act that brought in Rosa Parks as a new statue), but there is no such procedure needed to simply remove them from public display, commenting that this was the solution he and Schuman had proposed in their 2017 op-ed.

Theresnothing that says where they have to be, and they can be hidden, he said. The states can then find more fitting symbols for them, that represent peoplewho are actually good and actually did good things anybody who is there primarily for their service to the Confederacy is not someone who is admirable.

For his own home state, Virginia, Lehrer suggested their Confederate statue should be replaced with Grace Hopper, a computer scientist, a pioneer in computer programming, and a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy who passed away in 1992.

Theres only one female scientist or engineer in the collection right now, said Lehrer, calling Hopper perfect for Virginia because the two biggest industries are military and high tech, and observing that there was not currently anything of note in the state named for her.

As for my own home state of Florida, one of our Capitol statues depicts Dr. John B. Gorrie, the physician and inventor who is viewed as the father of air conditioning undoubtedly a most beloved representative for the Sunshine State. The other is Edmund Kirby Smith, a general in the Confederate Army who was born in St. Augustine but had little ties to Florida after his early childhood.

In 2018, the Florida Legislature passed a bill to replace Smith with an actual Floridian, Mary McLeod Bethune, the founder of what is now Bethune-Cookman College, a historically black university in Daytona Beach.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Excerpt from:

Libertarian Think Tank Praises Pelosis Call to Remove Confederate Statues from Capitol: Slavery is The Least Libertarian Thing Imaginable - Mediaite

Democrats seem surprised that Rep. Tom McClintock (RCalif.), a libertarian-leaning conservative, favors the abolition of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that often shields police officers from liability for violating people's constitutional rights. The Democrat opposing McClintock in this year's election, Brynne Kennedy, claims his position on qualified immunity, which she calls "a welcome surprise," implies that he should support the rest of her agenda, including such completely unrelated issues as Medicare, Social Security, and price controls for prescription drugs. If McClintock really wants to prove his bipartisanship, she says, he should agree with her about those issues too.

Given McClintock's history and ideology, Democrats should not have been surprised by his position on qualified immunity, and Kennedy's argument implies that true bipartisanship requires Republicans to agree with Democrats about everything. Her reaction to his stance, whether sincere or not, reflects a broader obstacle to building a trans-ideological coalition for police reform in the wake of George Floyd's death and the ensuing protests. Many left-leaning supporters of that cause either do not understand or willfully ignore the perspective of people like McClintock, and that incomprehension or misrepresentation risks alienating potential allies who disagree with them about a lot of other things.

As the RaleighNews & Observer noted, McClintock is not a newcomer to police reform, which he supported as a state legislator. Back in 2007, McClintock was outraged by the California Supreme Court's decision in Copley Press v. Superior Court,which shielded police disciplinary records from public view. "The Copley decision basically said that disciplinary proceedings against police officers are none of the public's business, even if conducted by a civil service commission under all due process considerations and even if the charges are proven," he said. "In short, once a citizen complains about the misuse of police power, even though the complaint is found to be entirely true, the public has no right to know. That is nuts."

Nor is McClintock a milquetoast when it comes to police invasions of people's homes. Here is what he had to say about no-knock raids this week: "No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason. The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes, and the authority of the police to make such an intrusion has to be announcedbefore it takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril."

Regarding qualified immunity specifically, the News & Observer notes, "libertarians have long been clamoring for change on the issue." The paper mentions the Institute for Justice, which for years has been backing cases aimed at restricting or eliminating qualified immunity. Conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and 5th Circuit Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, also have criticized the doctrine.

McClintock's opposition to qualified immunity makes sense if you understand where he is coming from. During his 2008 House campaign, my formerReason colleague Dave Weigel observed, McClintock "saw the real political split in this country (and everywhere else) as between 'authoritarians and libertarians,' with authoritarians in the saddle now but libertarians coming on strong." McClintock also told Weigel, "I am concerned with civil liberties in this country, and with warrantless surveillance of Americans."

McClintock has been an outspoken critic of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and he supported amnesty for National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. "I think it would be best if the American government granted him amnesty to get him back to America where he can answer questions without the threat of prosecution," McClintock told a Sacramento TV station in 2013. "We have some very good laws against sharing secrets, and he broke those laws. On the other hand, he broke them for a very good reason:because those laws were being used in direct contravention of our Fourth Amendment rights as Americans."

McClintock also has broken with most of his Republican colleagues in backing marijuana reform. He was an early supporter of legislation aimed at stopping federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and repealing the national ban on cannabis as it relates to conduct that is allowed by state law. McClintock opposed federal marijuana prohibition years before many prominent Democrats decided it was safe or politically expedient to do so. That position reflects not just a libertarian sensibility but a principled defense of federalism, a cause that many conservatives abandon when it proves inconvenient.

The fact that progressives can find common ground with McClintock on some issues, of course, hardly means he is about to embrace the rest of their agenda. Likewise with other conservatives, libertarians, and moderates, whether they have long supported police reform or are newly sympathetic because of the problems highlighted by George Floyd's death and other recent travesties.

It may seem obvious that you cannot build a coalition on an issue like police reform if you insist that your allies agree with you about everything or if you mistakenly treat them as Johnny-come-latelies. But progressives are making both of those mistakes.

Instead of supporting the four-page, stand-alone qualified immunity bill that Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.) introduced, House Democrats produced a 134-page billthat addresses qualified immunity but also includes several provisions Republicans are likely to oppose, including increased Justice Department scrutiny of local law enforcement polices and practices, government-backed racial profiling lawsuits, "training on racial bias" for federal law enforcement agents, and financial penalties for states that fail to ban chokeholds or are deficient in reporting data on traffic and pedestrian stops, body searches, and the use of force.

There is a huge gap between the Democrats' grab bag of proposalsmany of which are worthy ideasand the reforms that Republicans seem inclined to support. "The fact that it has no Republican sponsors, the fact that there was no effort to contact any of us to have us weigh in on the legislation, suggests it's designed to be a message piece, as opposed to a real piece of legislation," says Sen. Mitt Romney (RUtah), who plans to introduce a bipartisan police reform bill. "We should vote on each proposal separately," Amash argues. "Massive bills with dozens of topics aren't serious efforts to change law. They're messaging bills with no expectation of getting signed. They cram in so much that they're never written well or reviewed carefully."

The "defund police" slogan adopted by many activists (but wisely eschewed by most Democrats in Congress) poses similar problems. Some people who use it mean it literally, while others have in mind a restructuring of police departments and/or the transfer of money from them to social programs. Whatever the intent, the slogan is bound to alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to support reforms aimed at preventing police from abusing their powers and holding them accountable when they do. The fact that Donald Trump has latched onto the meme as a way of discrediting Democratic reformers is not a good sign. While "defund police" may appeal to some progressives and libertarians, it is not a message that will help attract broad public support for reforms.

It is also a strategic mistake for progressive reformers to act as if they own this issue when many people who don't agree with them on other subjects have been fighting this battle for a long time. As a libertarian who has been covering police abuse, the drug war, criminal justice reform, and civil liberties for more than three decades, I find that attitude irritating, and I'm sure other nonprogressives do as well. But this is not about personal pique; it's about how people with different ideological perspectives can come together on this issue now and avoid squandering an opportunity, perhaps the best we've had in many years, to do some good.

David Menschel, a criminal defense attorney, activist, and documentarian who runs the Vital Projects Fund, describes himself as a "left-winger," but he recognizes that progressives and libertarians are natural allies on this issue. He poses some provocative questions to libertarians about whether they are prepared to support social programs aimed at performing functions currently handled by the police. While that is a good conversation to have, it is not directly relevant to seizing this moment, which requires not only getting along with people who have different political views but also compromising with grudging supporters of reform who may be willing to back specific, concrete proposals to address police abuse that fall far short of the fundamental restructuring Menschel has in mind.

Much of the action on police reform is happening on the local and state levels, as you would expect given our federalist system of government. But to the extent that Congress can address the issue, we should be thinking about changes that might gain the support of not only Tom McClintock and Mitt Romney but also Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.), who has not heretofore distinguished himself as a criminal justice reformer but lately has been making noises about racial disparities in law enforcement. I'm not sure how much change someone like McConnell can stomach, but reform-minded legislators should find out before it's too late.

Original post:

How Not To Build a Transpartisan Coalition for Police Reform - Reason

And a ballot drop box is located near you.

Democratic, Libertarian, Republican and unaffiliated voters be on the watch for your Primary Election ballot in your mailbox. Ballots are being mailed the week of June 8, 2020. And remember,DouglasVotes.comis always your best source for up-to-date election information.

What ballot(s) should I expect to receive?Registered Democratic, Libertarian or Republican voters will receive one mail ballot for that partys Primary Election. Unaffiliated voters will receive TWO mail ballots (one Democratic and one Republican) but may return ONLY ONE. VisitDouglasVotes.comand read the2020 Primary Election Frequently Asked Questionsfor more information.

If you have not received your expected ballot(s) at the address associated with your voter registration by June 17, contact the Douglas County Elections office at 303.660.7444.

Whats on the ballot?Visit the Douglas Countyballot information pageto review a sample composite ballot for all items on Douglas County ballots.

Vote Early. Near You.Ballot drop boxes are open now through 7 p.m. on Election Day, June 30, 2020. Deliver your ballot for free using one of theconvenient ballot drop box locations countywide.

Will you turn 18 by the Nov. 3, 2020, General Election?Seventeen-year-olds who meet this criteria are able to vote in the Primary Election. Those who are pre-registered as Democratic, Libertarian, Republican or unaffiliated voters will receive their ballot(s) by mail. Visit the2020 Primary Election Frequently Asked Questionsfor more information.

Not registered to vote but want to be?Colorado election law allows voter registration up to and on Election Day. If you live in Douglas County, plan to vote in the Primary Election and are not registered to vote, do so atDouglasVotes.comby June 22 to receive a ballot by mail after that time you must visit a VSPC.

Voter Service and Polling Centers (VSPC).Three Douglas County VSPCs open Monday, June 22 in Castle Rock, Highlands Ranch and Lone Tree. At a VSPC you may register to vote, update your voter registration, replace a ballot, vote in person or use an ADA-accessible voting machine. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency, in-person services may be limited or unavailable at certain locations please checkDouglasVotes.comor call 303.660.7444 before visiting a VSPC to confirm availability.

When is the last possible day to vote?Know your ballot deadline. No matter how you deliver it, your ballot must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day, June 30.

Have questions or need assistance?Please visitDouglasVotes.comor contact Douglas County Elections by phone at 303.660.7444.

See original here:

Primary Election ballots are in the mail | YourHub - The Know

Why are Republicans in the Iowa Statehouse so afraid of democracy?

Perhaps they are not all afraid, but State Sen. Roby Smith, R-Davenport, certainly is, and based on this weeks vote in the Iowa Senate, it would sure seem that the rest of the GOP crew sitting in the Legislature are scared as well.

That can be the only possible explanation for their recent efforts to push through a last-minute amendment on a benign bill regarding county seals on ballots that passed the Iowa House 97-0. Sen. Smith and his fellow republicans pushed through the amendment under the guise of supposedly supporting safe, secure and reliable elections.

Partisan stonewalling and coronavirus conspire against Iowa candidates

Iowa Senate bars secretary of state from mailing absentee ballot requests

Make no mistake, the only things these scaredy cats are trying to keep safe and secure are their political careers by attempting to suppress a large segment of Iowa voters and striving to prevent them from having multiple choices on the ballot.

The amendment, that was passed the Iowa Senate along party lines this week, would require a written request from voters before the secretary of state would be able to mail out absentee ballots to Iowa voters. Im sure this has nothing to do with the record turnout Iowa saw during the primary elections on June 2. Turnout was high, largely due to the number of absentee ballots that were received in an election praised by Secretary of State Paul Pate (a Republican, mind you) as a huge success and an example of how counties, state agencies and the federal government working together to ensure Iowans could vote safely.

Let me say that quote again, just in case Sen. Smith and company missed it: This election was a terrific example of counties, state agencies and the federal government working together to ensure Iowans could vote safely.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

So we had a massively successful, safe and reliable election, and Republicans want us to believe that they are doing this for the betterment of Iowa voters.

But, wait! Theres more!

In an obvious move to keep third-party and independent candidates off the ballots, Smith tacked on a massive increase in the number of signatures that are required to obtain ballot access in Iowa. The amendment would increase the number of signatures required to gain ballot access for president, governor and U.S. Senate by 266 percent. The impact is even more devastating for prospective candidates who want to run for U.S. House, whose signature requirements would be raised from 375 to 2,000, an increase of more than 500 percent!

This is clearly an effort to alienate the 33 percent of Iowa voters who are so sick and tired of the partisan games played that they choose to register as either independent or third party when they fill out their voter registration cards. For a party that likes to espouse the virtues of freedom, Republicans sure love working to silence Iowans, huh?

I dont often take to calling out other parties. As somebody that was a Republican for nearly 20 years before becoming a Libertarian, and whose family is made up almost entirely of Republicans, I dont make these claims lightly. It is, however, glaringly obvious that this is not the same GOP that my great grandmother, who greatly influenced my political path, proudly represented her entire life. This is a party that can clearly see the writing on the wall, and are choosing to play political games to save their party and careers that are on life support.

They are waging a battle against freedom and democracy, plain and simple, and they deserve to be called out for doing so.

Mike Conner is Libertarian Party of Iowa chairman.

Follow this link:

Scared for their jobs, Iowa Republicans are gaming the democratic process - The Gazette

As a Christian libertarian, few things worry me more than the rise of socialism in America.

A March 2020 Gallup poll found that four out of ten Americans have a positive view of socialism. Among Democrats, 65 percent surveyed said they hold a favorable view of the doctrine.

Whats particularly alarming is that this embrace of socialism is making its way into Americas churches. In recent years, among my Christian friends, family members, and fellow church members, Ive seen sympathy for socialism expressed in various ways. Sometimes its outright support for socialistic policies like the Green New Deal. Other times its support for thinly veiled Marxist concepts or anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Ive had long discussions with people whove tried to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth, whom I recognize as God in flesh, was a socialist. Almost universally, I find these individuals dont misunderstand Jesus. They misunderstand socialism.

Reciting the evils of socialismwhich are legionis easy enough, but Ive found relating these lessons to the Gospel is somewhat more difficult.

Did Jesus not say money is the root of all evil? Did Jesus not say it would be exceedingly difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Didnt Jesus tell a rich man to sell all his possessions and then give it to the poor? Did Jesus not tell a parable about a landowner paying workers the same wage to all workers, even though some worked less than others?

Pointing out that socialism has killed tens of millions of people doesnt address these questions. But there are simple and persuasive answers to each of them, which I know now after reading Lawrence Reeds new book Was Jesus a Socialist?

As a full disclosure, Reed is FEEs president emeritus and a man I can consider a personal friend and mentor. My personal feelings aside, in his new bookwhich was officially released on Mondayhes provided a timely and meticulously well-researched work that deserves attention, especially from those who see Americas churches as the way forward for a loving and peaceful society.

Like it or not, Christian Socialism is on the rise. How we confront it will be one of the greatest challenges Christians face during turbulent times. To be clear, I dont believe Jesus was a capitalist. Or a libertarian. Or a Democrat or Republican.

As Daniel Hannan observed in a wonderful foreword to Reeds book, Jesus transcended such descriptions and showed little interest in the political or social structures of His own time, let alone of todays.

My kingdom is not of this world, Jesus told Pontius Pilate, according to John 18:36. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Unfortunately, this simple truth will not dissuade people from claiming Jesus was a socialist. For Christians seeking intellectual ammunition to rebut such claims, youll not find a better place to start than Reeds new book.

Heres a brief list of observations, facts, and musings about socialism, wealth, and Jesus from the book.

This is just a small taste of what youll learn from reading Lawrence Reeds new book Was Jesus a Socialist?

Read the original post:

61 Quick Facts and Observations on Socialism, Jesus, and Wealth | Jon Miltimore - Foundation for Economic Education

While the distance in votes between District 1 Commissioner Dave Nelson widened a smidge, there are still only 23 votes between he and challenger Danny Tarkanian.

As of Thursday afternoon, Nelson was ahead 5,803-5,780 with 62 new ballots added to the mix, according to the Douglas County Clerk-Treasurers Office.

Nelson received 12 more votes than Tarkanian on Thursday.

Ballots are expected to continue to trickle in by mail through 5 p.m. Tuesday. Thats also the deadline for the voters whose ballots were rejected due to signature issues to come to the Clerks Office and sign their ballots or show identification.

District 5 Commission candidate Walt Nowosad had 552 votes over opponent Nate Tolbert on Thursday. Nowosads lead has increased by 11 votes since Tuesday.

While the vote isnt final, Mark Gardners 2,336-vote lead over District 3 Commissioner Larry Walsh assures his victory in the primary.

He will go on to face Ruhenstroth Libertarian Charles Holt in the November general election. No Libertarian has ever won a seat on the county commission. The last non-Republican to hold a seat on the board of commissioners was independent Cecil Stodieck, who ran unopposed in 1946 and only served two years.

Read more:

Nelson lead up to 23 votes over Tarkanian - The Record-Courier