Monthly Archives: March 2022

During an appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC earlier this week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had some choice words for crypto bros navigating questions of deplatforming amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

"If the Ukrainians with our help can impose enough economic pain on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and, sadly, the Russian people, combined with providing weaponsthat might be the only waythat I can see us getting to a stalemate that might save the Ukrainian people from even greater tragedy," said Clinton, referring to the broad-based sanctions imposed by Western governments on Russian financial institutions and state-owned companies.

Clinton added,"I was disappointed to see that some of the so-called crypto exchanges, not all of them, but some of them are refusing to end transactions with Russia for some philosophy of libertarianism or whatever,"later in the segment. "Everybodyshould do as much as possible to isolate Russian economic activity right now."

Maddow, who seemed to agree with her guest, responded by calling crypto "an escape hatch" with potential to stymie "multilateral action."

That's precisely the point. Crypto's transcendence of national borders is a feature, not a bug.

On Sunday, Ukraine's Vice Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov instructed crypto platforms to freeze the blockchain addresses of Russian and Belarusian users. Many major players in the crypto world bristled at this, pointing to the fact that administering such sanctions or deplatforming people based on nationality runs contrary to the liberatory promise of crypto.

Of course, many country's governments can and have cracked down on crypto exchanges in recent months by layering on reporting requirements for whenever large amounts of crypto are bought or sold. To a certain degree, exchanges are still subject to the rules of the countries they operate inas opposed tocold wallets, which are offline means of storing your crypto. Since widespread crypto adoption is still in its infancy, governments are still ironing out their regulatory approaches; expect lots of different frameworksand subsequent workaroundsin the coming years.

None of that is to say that broad-based economic sanctions won't be effective in applying pressure on Putin, but people within the crypto world tend to approach deplatforming people with major trepidation. Right now, ordinary Russians are being punished by sanctions for the sins of their strongman and it's important to take seriously the pain that will be felt by them.

For now, Russian users are still serviced by cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance and Kraken, which allow people to retain some amount of financial freedom even as their prospects look grim. Perhaps more will flock to those options in the future; they should have both financial and physical exit from their country available to them if they so choose. And, where crypto possibly helps everyday Russians, it also helps the Ukrainians under siege, who are facing the financial instability that accompanies war.

See more here:
Hillary Clinton Is 'Disappointed' by Crypto Exchanges' 'Philosophy of Libertarianism' Hillary Clinton Is 'Disappointed' by Crypto Exchanges'...

Should the United States do more to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian invaders? Will financial sanctions against Russia work and are they moral? What does a libertarian foreign policy predicated on "realism and restraint" look like?

Today's guest on The Reason Interview is Will Ruger, the newly appointed president of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), who holds a Ph.D. in politics specializing in foreign policy. He's a veteran of the war in Afghanistan and was a prominent voice in calling for U.S. withdrawal. Ruger was nominated to be ambassador to that country late in the Trump administration (his confirmation was never brought to a vote).

He's a proponent of what he calls "libertarian realism" when it comes to foreign policy, meaning that America's interventions abroad should be focused on defending a narrowly defined national interest and that the use of military force should be strictly subjugated to diplomacy. Ruger is skeptical that the United States can or should play a leading role in defending Ukraine and he doesn't think sanctions are likely to accomplish anything, especially in the short run.

We talk about all that, how NATO, the European Union, and China figure into current events, and what he plans to do as the head of AIER, one of the oldest free market think tanks in the country.

Original post:
Will Ruger: How Libertarians Should Think About Ukraine Invasion - Reason

When approaching a problem of government excess, the conservative approach is straightforward: trim the fat, eliminate government restrictions and let the free market work. Moreover, both parties share that approach after all, Presidents Kennedy and Reagan both slashed income taxes, and President Carter deregulated the airlines.

In contrast, what is the conservative solution when approaching a problem of corporate excess? Unfortunately, that is the problem conservatives now confront with Big Tech, the enormous corporations that control what Americans can do and see online with almost no government oversight.

To the libertarian, the answer is easy: Do nothing. Laissez-faire economics is effectively a religion requiring strict adherence. As Calvinists believe that sinners are in the hands of an angry God, libertarians believe that consumers are at the divine mercy of the invisible hand. They are the chosen few who dedicate their lives to the strict view that government and only government is a threat to the free market.

So it is no surprise that libertarians have been up in arms to combat bipartisan bills to rein in Big Tech, such as the Open App Markets Act and the EARN IT Act. But conservatives such as Sens. Marsha BlackburnMarsha BlackburnThe damnable religious inklings of the Big Tech libertarian Trump holds GOP candidate forum at Mar-a-Lago Lawmakers condemn Putin, call for crippling sanctions on Russia amid military operation MORE (R-Tenn.) and Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamOvernight Defense & National Security Russia expected to escalate war with Ukraine Russia widely expected to escalate violence in Ukraine Senate gears up for confirmation of first Black woman to Supreme Court MORE (R-S.C.) recognize that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. A hands-off approach to Big Tech may work for libertarian purists, but it fails to confront the real problems Americans are facing.

Take, for example, todays app stores. Apple and Google control more than 95 percent of the mobile app store market. For years, theyve had free rein to charge app developers up to a 30 percent tax for the privilege of competing in the mobile space most small developers are paying these tech giants more than they contribute to the federal fisc.

To lock in that tax, Apple has prohibited apps from offering their own payment methods, infamously locking out Epics Fortnite when it dared to provide players with an alternative. Making it worse, Apple has agreed to the Chinese Communist Partys request to censor free-speech apps that would allow repressed Uyghurs, persecuted Christians and pro-democracy advocates to communicate.

The libertarian response? A shrug.

But when Blackburn joined Sens. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharDemocrats press top pharmaceutical representative on price increases The damnable religious inklings of the Big Tech libertarian Five things to know about Ukraine's President Zelensky MORE (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to introduce the Open App Markets Act? Outrage.

The claims are absurd, bordering on parody. Although the Act expressly lets consumers choose to sideload apps not available on an app store, libertarians claim it will reduce consumer choice by making Apples app store slightly less distinct from Googles. Although the Act lets alternative app stores compete for a consumers business, libertarians argue that allowing more app stores might somehow lead to higher consumer costs. And the libertarian response to more free-speech apps? That the senators might not like everything said on those apps.

Or consider the online market for child sexual exploitation. The International Labour Organization estimates that women and girls comprise99 percent of victims of forced sexual exploitation. Worse, 25 percent of the victims are children. Significantly, online predators continually use social media sites to recruit and sell young girls for sex 59 percent of recruitments (65 percent of which involve children)happened on Facebook alone. Yet, tech companies frequently use Section 230 as a sword to provide them with immunity from liability, even if accused of participating in child sex trafficking.

The libertarian response? Meh.

But when Graham introduced the EARN IT Act to crack down on Big Techs facilitation of child sexual exploitation? You guessed it, more outrage.

Again, libertarians engage in hyperbole, arguing that the EARN IT Act will somehow erode encryption, leaving us as exposed as Lady Godiva riding through Coventry. In reality, the EARN IT Act makes modest amendments to platforms Section 230 liability when they take a blind eye to users they know to be engaging in sex trafficking on their platforms.

Its perfectly conservative to have a knee-jerk reaction to new government rules. But its indulging in a foolish consistency to stop there. When the fate of entrepreneurs, civil discourse and children are on the line, conservatives must face the facts and rethink their priors. When Big Tech respects the commands of a foreign censor more than the free voices of the American people, laissez-faire cannot be the answer.

Instead, conservative sentiments support reining in the power of Big Tech. And we are lucky that conservatives in the Senate are willing to reach across the aisle to forge sensible, bipartisan solutions. No matter how much the little statesmen protest, the philosophers scream and the divines rage.

Joel Thayer is the president of the Digital Progress Institute, a nonprofit seeking to bridge the policy divide between telecom and tech through bipartisan consensus.

Visit link:
The damnable religious inklings of the Big Tech libertarian | TheHill - The Hill

It is difficult to discuss the American libertarian movement without considering the late economist Murray Rothbard. On this date, which would have been his 96th birthday, we present and discuss the radical ideas of Rothbard.

Born in the Bronx in 1926 to Jewish immigrant parents from Poland and Russia, Rothbard grew up as a self-described right-winger, influenced greatly by his father who, in Rothbards own words, believed in devotion to the Basic American way: minimal government, belief in and respect for free enterprise and private property, and a determination to rise by ones own merits and not via government privilege or handout.

In the 1940s and on, Rothbard became exposed to the libertarian ideas of economists like Ludwig von Mises as he pursued and received degrees in mathematics and economics, including a doctorate in the latter.

Beginning in the 1950s, he began working on a book aimed at explaining Mises work that resulted in Rothbards signature economic treatise Man, Economy and State, which was published in 1962. Like Mises work, Rothbards economic approach was predicated on the idea that economics could be explained from first principles, which center on human action.

In Rothbards view, individuals ought to be free to make their own choices and associate with each other voluntarily as they see fit.

Radically, Rothbard believed that there were no functions currently undertaken by governments that couldnt be done by the private sector. He viewed governments and those advocating expansive government skeptically, as institutions and individuals incenticized to leverage the force of government on increasing spheres of life for the sake of power. This radicalism led him to view the direction of the United States critically.

In rhetoric, America is the land of the free and the generous, enjoying the. .. blessings of a free market, he wrote in 1967. In actual practice, the free economy is virtually gone, replaced by an imperial corporate state Leviathan that organizes, commands, exploits the rest of society and, indeed, the rest of the world, for its own power and pelf.

One can only imagine what hed say about matters today.

In 1969, Rothbard explained to Young Americans for Freedom that, as a libertarian, he no longer considered himself a part of the American right and cautioned libertarians against going along with conservative-libertarian fusionism, which came to dominate the Republican Party over the next few decades.

I got out of the right wing not because I ceased believing in liberty, but because being a libertarian above all, I came to see that the right wing specialized in cloaking its authoritarian and neo-fascist policies in the honeyed words of libertarian rhetoric, he wrote.

Though Rothbard would, toward the end of his life, himself veer off into being politically allied with right-wing populists, his 1969 warning to those who value liberty is instructive. It highlights why theres been an ongoing struggle between libertarians and conservatives, who, despite having much in common, fundamentally disagree on key matters, like the value of liberty versus state-enforced commitment to tradition.

Rothbard certainly wasnt perfect, holding and promoting self-evidently ridiculous views that persist in some factions of the libertarian movement particularly a preoccupation with engaging in apologia for the Confederacy. But, his overall body of work and life was focused on promoting individual liberty, free markets and peace. For that, we remember him.

Read this article:
Remembering the ideas of Murray Rothbard - Daily Breeze

Gary North, a leading Christian Reconstructionist who argued for the biblical basis of free market economics and urged people to prepare for societal collapse, has died at 80.

North was a prolific writer, simultaneously penning a 31-volume Bible commentary on Austrian economics; turning out regular warnings about financial catastrophe; and firing off a seemingly endless stream of columns on the gold standard, government overreach, Gods covenants, and the greatness of libertarian Ron Paul.

He was perhaps most mainstream when he supported Pauls longshot presidential bid in 2012. He boosted the candidate throughout the Republican Party primaries, alternately explaining monetary policy to newly converted libertarians and hyping the chances that the Texas politician could actually win the White House.

He was most well-known, though, for his warnings about Y2K. North was convinced that a computer programing shortcutcoding years with two digits instead of fourwas going to lead to catastrophic crashes when the year 99 became the year 00 and the worlds digital infrastructure reset itself. He eagerlyeven gleefullyheralded the collapse of civilization and coached Christians on how to stockpile food, gold, and guns.

For his part, North thought his most important work and true calling was explaining how the alternative economic theories of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard (both nonpracticing Jews) were deeply biblical. Free market economics should be grounded, he believed, in the Bibles account of Gods covenants, the scarcity that follows the Fall, and the divine mandate in Genesis 1:28 that people should take dominion over the earth (KJV).

North conceived his magnum opus as a Christian version of Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations but acknowledged it would probably never have the influence or the readership that he wanted. Really, he said, he was writing for a very small group of people.

Who are the likely readers? A remnant, he wrote. I mean those Christians who are convinced that there are serious problems with the modern economies of the world. I also mean those who are convinced that there are biblical alternatives to the collapsing secular humanism of our era. I write for those who are convinced that there had better be a distinctly Christian economics, and not baptized Marxism, baptized Keynesianism, or baptized Friedmanism, let alone the unbaptized varieties.

When North died in hospice care in Dallas, Georgia, on February 24, his books were available for free online.

North was born on February 11, 1942, in Horn Lake, Mississippi, to Peggy and Samuel W. North Jr. The family relocated to Southern California in Garys childhood, so his father could surveil the Socialist Workers Party for the FBI.

It was a deeply conservative home, committed to anti-Communism, but North nevertheless experienced a political awakening at 14 when he heard a lecture by Australian Fred Schwarz, head of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, about beating global Communism, the unbeatable foe. Soon the teenager was not only opposed to Marx and Lenin, but also Franklin Roosevelt, the New Deal, and Social Security.

North became a regular at the Betsy Ross Book Shop, a critical hub of Southern California conservatism, and a faithful reader of The Freeman, the libertarian magazine produced by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the first free market think tank in the United States.

At 17, he became a Christian and became fascinated by the idea of connecting libertarian economics with his faith. Several people claimed to be doing this at the time, but in Norths estimation, they fell short. A Dutch Calvinist businessman was republishing the work of Austrian economist Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk and calling it Progressive Calvinism, but it wasnt notably more religious than the work of other Austrian theorists. J. Howard Pew, the Presbyterian oil magnate and Christianity Today financier, was publishing a twice-monthly journal called Christian Economics, but it didnt seem to be particularly Christian.

The authors were first-rate free market economists, and many of them were Austrian school economists, North later recalled. But there was no attempt by the authors to integrate what they were writing on economics with the Bible.

By the time he was 18, North was personally committed to this project. He decided he would do what others hadnt and show how the whole counsel of God supported free market capitalism.

The most significant moment in Norths development came in 1962, when he met R. J. Rushdoony, a Presbyterian pastor who developed a theology he called Christian Reconstructionism. Rushdoony said that everyoneand in fact everything and every intellectual discipline that started from objective, observable factswas in rebellion against God and needed to be brought under Gods authority. He argued a truly Christian society would be a theonomy, under divine law.

North embraced Christian Reconstructionism to the point that he would, over the years, make the argument that a truly Christian country would reinstitute the practice of public stoning.

That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the re-introduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians, he would write. Christians have voluntarily transferred their allegiance from the infallible Old Testament to contemporary God-hating and God-denying criminologists and economists.

North spent one summer working with Rushdoony at a libertarian think tank and kept in touch.

After he graduated with a PhD in history from the University of California, Riverside, he went to work for FEE, directing seminars at the Irvington, New York, think tank, and writing articles for The Freeman. He wrote about gold, inflation, financial depressions, and the theology at work in economic theories (Men have a tendency to get their religious presuppositions confused with economic analysis, he said).

In 1972, North married Sharon Rushdoony, R. J.s daughter. The next year he quit FEE, partly in a dispute over rights to his writing and public lectures, and went to work for his new father-in-law. He edited the new journal of Christian Reconstructionism, the Chalcedon Report, assisted with the research for Rushdoonys Institutes of Biblical Law, and published his first book, a collection of articles titled An Introduction to Christian Economics.

Is there such a thing as a distinctively Christian economics? North asked in the introduction. His answer was Yes. The first chapter looked Old Testament prophets condemnations of dross and drew out implications for monetary policy.

In 1976, North took a brief break from the world of think tanks to go work for Ron Paul in Washington, DC. The Texas obstetrician named won a special election and went to the capital promising to fight the Federal Reserve and return the US to the gold standard. He needed staff, and hired North to write twice-monthly newsletters to his constituents.

The job only lasted until Paul lost reelection in November. North was considered for a position in Congressman Dan Quayles office but didnt get it, and decided he wanted nothing more to do with government work.

Seldom in the history of man have so many incompetents, cronies, idiots, goof-offs, hangers-on, and nincompoops been assembled in one geographical area, he wrote. These people are yo-yos. You would not believe how second-rate these people are. I am speaking about the conservative staffers.

Leaving Congress, North moved to Durham, North Carolina, where he could access an academic library. He started working in earnest on his economics Bible commentary.

To fund the work, he founded the Institute for Christian Economics. He sold self-published books by direct mail for $10 and then got book-buyers to subscribe to his newsletter, Remnant Report, for $45 per year. He grew the subscriber base from 2,000 to more than 22,000, grossing $1.2 million in 1979. What North didnt use for his Bible commentary he poured into building up Christian Reconstructionism.

In the early 1980s, North moved to Tyler, Texas, be closer to other Christian Reconstructionists. At the same time, North had a bitter falling out with Rushdoony. The disagreement started with an article about the lambs blood on the doorposts in the Passover story in Exodus.

The esoteric debate quickly escalated. North told his father-in-law he was going to be replaced by younger, more vigorous men. Rushdoony replied, Your letter is written with your usual grace and courtesy.

The Texas Reconstructionists were also increasingly fixated on impending catastrophes, becoming preppers and survivalists. North wrote that the AIDS epidemic would lead to civilizational collapse, predicted numerous recessions and depressions caused by inflation or government debt, and frequently urged people to buy gold and silver before it was too late.

The peak of his apocalyptic fervor came in the late 1990s. North became convinced that a computer programing shortcut would end modern life as we know it, resulting in a nightmare for every area of life, in every region of the industrialized world.

To North, it was clear this was divine punishment for a world that had strayed from God. He called it a good, old-fashioned Deuteronomy kind of thing and launched a website with advice on postapocalyptic bartering, gardening, food storage, generators, where to move to best avoid murderous hoards, and of course, why you should buy gold.

When the predicted day of doom came and went, North noted that he had been incorrect, but said Y2Ks effects, so far, have taken all of the specialists by surprise. He believed, regardless, that gold was a good investment and people were better off, prepared for disaster in out-of-the-way parts of the world.

North moved on from predicting disasters and turned to more mainstream commentary in the next decade, when he became a regular columnist for the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist website LewRockwell.com.

He advocated for the Tea Party movement and the gold standard while attacking social security, fiat money, leftist evangelical Jim Wallis, and Franklin Roosevelt. He occasionally defended conspiracy theories, speculated about a conspiracy behind the terrorist attacks of 2001, and when his old boss Ron Paul started gaining momentum, he wrote about Paul.

As the libertarian candidates quest for the Republican nomination fizzled, North finally finished the 8,511-page book he had first dreamed of in 1960 and had started writing in 1973: An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

No one has ever attempted a Bible commentary like this: what the Bible has to say about the details of an academic discipline, North wrote. The culmination of my lifes work is here.

North posted the final, revised, and typeset PDF of the commentary online on January 29, 2021. He died one month later.

He was predeceased by his son Caleb and survived by his wife, Sharon, and their children Darcy North, Scott North, and Lori McDurmon.

Read the original:
Died: Gary North, Who Saw Austrian Economics in the Bible and Disaster on the Horizon... | News & Reporting - ChristianityToday.com

The Statue of Liberty.

A draft version of new article on "Immigration and the Economic Freedom of Natives" (forthcoming in a symposium in Public Affairs Quarterly) is now available on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Much of the debate over the justice of immigration restrictions properly focuses on their impact on would-be migrants. For their part, restrictionists often focus on the potentially harmful effects of immigration on residents of receiving countries. This article cuts across this longstanding debate by focusing on ways in which immigration restrictions inflict harm on natives, specifically by undermining their economic liberty. The idea that such effects exist is far from a new one. But this article examines them in greater detail, and illustrates their truly massive scale. It covers both the libertarian "negative" view of economic freedom, and the more "positive" version advanced by left-liberal political theorists.

Part I focuses on libertarian approaches to economic freedom. It shows that migration restrictions severely restrict the negative economic liberty of natives, probably more than any other government policy enacted by liberal democracies. That is true both on libertarian views that value such freedom for its own sake, and those that assign value to it for more instrumental reasons, such as promoting human autonomy and enabling individuals to realize their personal goals and projects.

In Part II, I take up left-liberal "positive" theories of economic freedom, which primarily focus on enhancing individuals' access to important goods and services, and enabling them to have the resources necessary to live an autonomous life. Some also focus on expanding human capacities generally, or give special emphasis to enhancing the economic prospects of the poor. Here too, migration restrictions impose severe costs on natives. To the extent migration can sometimes harm the economic prospects of natives, the issue is better dealt with by "keyhole solutions" that address specific problems by means other than restricting migration.

Finally, Part III describes how to address situations where potentially harmful side effects of migration might undermine either negative or positive economic liberty of natives, without actually restricting migration. I have addressed such issues in greater detail in previous work, and here provide only a short summary of my approach and its relevance for economic liberty issues.

I am looking for some alternative to "natives" as a concise, non-clunky way to refer to "current citizens of destination countries." I welcome any suggestions readers might come up with. E-mail me if you have one!

Read more:
My New Article on "Immigration and the Economic Freedom of Natives" - Reason

President Joe Biden gave his second State of the Union Address last night. It was, above all, a testament to the ridiculous breadth of issues we expect our executive branch to be involved in and the absurd reach of the federal government into all aspects of American life.

Biden delved into everything from the price of insulin to protecting Roe v. Wade, safeguarding kids from social media ads, lowering consumer prices, getting more Americans mental health services, ensuring better patient treatment at nursing homes, raising the minimum wage, subsidizing childcare, stopping drug trafficking, helping young transgender people reach their potential, creating manufacturing jobs, combating cancer, and more. (You can read the whole thing here.)

One of the most notableand libertarian-friendlysections of the speech related to COVID-19 and the pandemic, with Biden (in a test of new Democratic messaging on the issue?) promising a return to normalcy. "COVID-19 need no longer control our lives," he declared, while still touting the efficacy of vaccines, the importance of testing, and the need to stay vigilant about new variants.

"Most Americans in most of the country can now be mask free," said Biden, pointing to new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. He also commented: "Our schools are open. Let's keep it that way."

But Biden's State of the Union hit way too many notes that would've been right at home in an address from former President Donald Trump. He called for more police funding, talked about the need to strengthen our southern border, and went on at length about America-first trade policies and buying American.

"This is more a populist than a left-wing speech: trade protection, business subsidies, transfer payments, more money for police, secure the border," commented Cato Institute's Executive Vice President David Boaz.

Here's more State of the Union analysis from Reason writers:

"Criminal Justice Campaign Promises Absent From Biden's State of the Union Speech"

"Biden Says No Troops to Ukraine, Is Silent on Ukrainian and Russian Refugees"

"Biden's State of the Union Offers More Useless Solutions to Gun Violence"

"If COVID-19 Is Over for Congress, It Should Be Over for School Children Too"

"Biden Praises Ukrainian 'Iron Will', Refuses To Use Ukrainian Iron in Infrastructure Projects"

"Biden Tries To Twist His Domestic Agenda Into a Form Joe Manchin Will Support"

Politician can block people on personal Facebook pages. A federal appeals court ruled that it doesn't violate the First Amendment for a New Mexico politician to block someone on his personal Facebook page. The case involves Otero County Commissioner (and Cowboys for Trump co-founder) Couy Griffin and whether his personal Facebook page counted as a public forum for free speech purposes.

"Three judges from the appeals court ruled unanimously that plaintiff Jeff Swanson, chairman of the Otero County Democratic Party, failed to show that the law has determined when a personal social media profile becomes a public forum, with 1st Amendment protections," reports the Associated Press. Swanson had argued that "elected leaders should not be able to shut out the electorate from political conversations on social media," after being blocked from Griffin's personal Facebook profile after criticizing the commissioner.

Getting cryptocurrency wrong. In which Sen. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) and The New York Times get everything about cryptocurrency and Ukraine/Russia exactly backward:

Cryptocurrencies are much more likely to help out ordinary Russians and Ukrainians than "Putin and his cronies."

"Crypto is a lifeline for ordinary people in countries like Venezuela and Russia, not a means to evade sanctions," comments the Niskanen Center's Samuel Hammond. "On the contrary. Russia is trying to minimize the cost of sanctions through draconian capital controls. Access to crypto markets *hurts* Russia more than it helps."

Andas Hammonds and many others have pointed outcryptocurrency transactions come with a record. "An immutable ledger is simply not a smart way for nation states or large corporations to evade sanctions," comments Hammond. "There are two sides to every transaction. You really think Volkswagen could just illegally export vehicles to Russia and it not be noticed just because they paid in Bitcoin?"

Russia's attacks on major Ukrainian cities "accelerated on Wednesday, with the Russian military claiming that its forces were fully in control of Kherson, a port near the Black Sea," The New York Times reports, adding that "Ukrainian officials disputed Russia's claim." Russian forces also bombed a government building in Kharkiv yesterday, surrounded the port city of Mariupol, and continued advancing on Kyiv.

"Don't pour your Russian vodka down the drain," writes Jack Shafer in Politico, and don't kick Russian students out of the U.S.

Why a no-fly zone over Ukraine is a bad move.

A new poll finds Democrats more supportive than Republicans of U.S. intervention in Ukraine:

How Texas abortion restrictions are putting women's health at risk.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing over a Texas directive that sex reassignment surgery, puberty blockers, or hormone treatments for minors should be considered child abuse.

The Washington Post looks at different visions for the American right, as embodied by three conservative conferences that took place last weekend.

"Is libertarianism a specifically political philosophy whose only legitimate concern is the role of the state and its use of force vis a vis the people it rules? Or does libertarianism, properly understood, also entail a variety of cultural commitments that range far beyond arguments over the size, scope, and spending of government?" Reason's Nick Gillespie and Stephanie Slade discuss.

Professor and writer Paul Cantorauthor of The Invisible Hand in Popular Culture: Liberty vs. Authority in American Film and TV and an occasional contributor to Reasonhas died.

Visit link:
Biden's State of the Union Highlights Absurd Reach of Federal Government - Reason

Nicole Fuentes

After filing a Freedom of Information request with the Suffolk County Board of Elections, enrollment numbers based on party lines in our area was found:

Numbers were rounded to the whole for clarity.

BROOKHAVEN TOWN

With over 334,000 registered voters, Brookhaven Town has a total of 106,767 Democratic voters and 106,838 Republican voters. It also has just over 7,000 conservatives, 1,400-plus working party, 41 green party, 14,000 independent and 20 and 2 libertarian and SAM voters.

ISLIP TOWN

With over 212,000 voters, Islip Town has just nearly 77,000 Democratic voters and 63,500 Republican voters. It also has 4,000 conservative, 770 working party, 300 green, 7,770 independent, 350 libertarian and 14 SAM.

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1

Congressional District 1, which will see an open seat this year due to Rep. Lee Zeldins announcement in running for Governor, has a total of 164,500 Democratic voters to their 166,000 Republican voters, 11,350 conservative, and 21,900 independent voters.

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 2

Congressional District 2 has 130,450 Democratic voters, 96,950 Republican voters, 12,000 independent voters and 6,200 conservative voters.

SENATE DISTRICT 3

Senate District 3 has 69,900 Democratic voters, 57,250 Republican voters, 7,450 independent voters and 4,000 conservative voters.

SENATE DISTRICT 4

Senate District 4 has 75,000 Democratic voters, 64,250 Republican voters, 7,700 independent voters and 4,000 conservative voters.

ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 3

Assembly District 3 has 27,700 Democratic voters, 25,500 Republican voters, 3,450 independent voters and 1,850 conservative voters.

ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 7

Assembly District 7 has 27,300 Democratic voters, 34,000 Republican voters, 4,050 independent voters and 2,400 conservative voters.

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 3

Legislative District 3 has 17,000 Democratic voters, 15,100 Republican voters, 2,100 independent voters and 1,100 conservative voters.

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 7

Legislative District 7 has 17,700 Democratic voters, 15,100 Republican voters, 2,250 independent voters and 1,150 conservative voters.

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 8

Legislative District 8 has 17,000 Democratic voters, 22,750 Republican voters, 2,600 independent voters and 1,450 conservative voters.

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 10

Legislative District 10 has 17,300 Democratic voters, 19,990 Republican voters, 4,050 independent voters and 2,180 conservative voters.

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 11

Legislative District 11 has 18,000 Democratic voters, 19,700 Republican voters, 2,300 independent voters and 1,150 conservative voters.

2021 November election assessment:

Suffolk County Republicans came out in full force, taking control of the Suffolk County Legislature, unseating the Democratic majority leader Rob Calarco and taking control of the 18-seat body.

Republican candidate Dominick Thorne unseated Suffolk County presiding officer Rob Calarco with 54 percent with 6,611 votes, to Calarcos 45 percent of the vote, 5,627 votes, for District 7. This would have been Calarcos final term as legislator after serving a total of 10 years in the seat.

Also, special election incumbent Republican James Mazzarella took the win for Suffolk Countys 3rd district against former Legis. Kate Browning with 66 percent of the vote and 7,525 votes to her 32 percent of the vote, and 3,708 votes.

Trish Bergin, a former councilwoman for Town of Islip, won in a wide margin against Carla Simpson in former legislator Tom Cilmis term-limited seat in the 10th Legislative District. Bergin had gained 7,260 votes, or 67.07 percent, compared to Fidelias 3,559, or 32.88 percent.

According to Suffolk County Board of Elections data, residents who just recently enrolled to vote include a total of 810 new Democratic voters and 166 new Republican voters in Brookhaven Town, and 121 new Democratic voters and 48 new Republican voters in Islip Town. Legislative District 7, which saw an upset, had a total of 31 new Democratic voters and 10 new Republican voters. The 3rd Legislative District saw an almost equal number of new voters at 24 and 17, respectively, and the 10th Legislative District had 25 and 19 new voters as well.

VOTER TURNOUT

Taking an overall look at some of the 2021 voting numbers, voter turnout was extremely low.

There were barely 11,000 voters in the 10th Legislative District compared to the over 56,500 registered votes. Legislative District 7 had over 12,000 voters with over 51,500 registered voters, and the 3rd Legislative District had over 11,000 votes with over 51,100 registered voters.

Go here to read the rest:
Insight into last year's voting enrollment - The Suffolk County News

Heres the final list of candidates for races on ballots in Lincoln County for the May 10 primary election. An (I) denotes an incumbent.

If a recognized Nebraska political party doesnt appear within this list in partisan races, it means no candidate filed for that partys primary by the deadline.

All local races are shown here, but only school board and North Platte City Council races with more than two candidates per open seat will appear on the primary ballot. Candidates otherwise will advance to the Nov. 8 general election.

U.S. House, 3rd District Republican: Adrian Smith, Gering (I). Democratic: David J. Else, rural Overton; Daniel M. Wik, Norfolk. Legal Marijuana NOW: Mark Elworth Jr., Omaha.

Governor Republican: Donna Nicole Carpenter, Lincoln; Michael Connely, York; Charles W. Herbster, rural Falls City; Brett Lindstrom, Omaha; Lela McNinch, Lincoln; Jim Pillen, Columbus; Breland Ridenour, Omaha; Theresa Thibodeau, Omaha; Troy Wentz, rural Sterling. Democratic: Carol Blood, Bellevue; Roy Harris, Linwood. Libertarian: Scott Zimmerman, Omaha.

People are also reading

Secretary of State Republican: Bob Evnen (I), Lincoln; Rex Schroder, Palmyra; Robert Borer, Lincoln.

State Treasurer Republican: John Murante (I), Omaha; Paul Anderson, Omaha. Libertarian: Katrina Tomsen, Upland.

Attorney General Republican: Jennifer Hicks, Peru; Mike Hilgers, Lincoln. Legal Marijuana NOW: Larry Bolinger, Alliance.

Auditor of Public Accounts Republican: Larry Anderson, Lincoln; Mike Foley, Lincoln. Libertarian: Gene Sladek, Omaha. Legal Marijuana NOW: L. Leroy Lopez, rural Cortland.

Legislature District 42: Mike Jacobson (I), North Platte; Chris Bruns, rural North Platte; Brenda Fourtner, North Platte.

State Board of Education District 7: Robin Stevens (I), Gothenburg; Pat Moore, Litchfield; Elizabeth Tegtmeier, North Platte.

University of Nebraska Board of Regents District 7: Nolan Gurnsey, rural Sutherland; Matt Williams, Gothenburg; Kathy Wilmot, rural Beaver City.

Public Service Commission District 5: Mary Ridder (I), rural Callaway; Dakota Delka, Red Cloud; Kevin Stocker, rural Scottsbluff.

Mid-Plains Community College Board of Governors District 4: Ben Lashley (I), rural North Platte. District 5: Tricia Schaffer, rural North Platte.

Middle Republican Natural Resources District board Subdistrict 5: Daniel Nelsen (I, Subdistrict 1), rural Stockville; Dan Estermann (I, Subdistrict 2), rural Wellfleet.

Twin Platte Natural Resources District board Subdistrict 1: Jon Walz, rural Stapleton. Subdistrict 2: Joe Wahlgren, rural Brady (I). Subdistrict 3: Jake Tiedeman, North Platte (I). Subdistrict 4: David Colvin, rural North Platte (I). At-large: Eric Brown, rural Hershey (I).

Nebraska Public Power District board Subdistrict 4: Larry Linstrom, North Platte; Bill Hoyt (I), rural McCook; David Gale, North Platte.

County Commissioner, District 2 Republican: Kent Weems (I), rural Stapleton; Todd Roe, Brady; David P. Huebner, rural North Platte. District 3 Republican: Micaela Wuehler (I), rural North Platte.

County Clerk Republican: Becky Rossell (I), North Platte.

Register of Deeds Republican: Lois Block (I), North Platte.

Clerk of the District Court Republican: Deb McCarthy (I), North Platte.

County Treasurer Republican: Alex Gurciullo (I), North Platte.

County Sheriff Republican: Jerome Kramer (I), rural Stapleton.

County Attorney Republican: Rebecca Harling (I), rural North Platte.

Public Defender Democratic: Bob Lindemeier (I).

County Surveyor Republican: Boni Edwards (I), rural North Platte.

County Assessor Republican: Julie Stenger (I), rural North Platte.

City Council Ward 1: Jim Nisley (I), 802 Russian Olive Road. Ward 2: Ty Lucas (I), 3510 Tyler Court; Kelle Dikeman, 2502 Cedarberry Lane. Ward 3: Jim Carman (I), 1401 West A St.; Brian Flanders, 3301 Maplewood Drive. Ward 4: Ed Rieker (I), 916 N. Emory Ave.; Tracy Martinez, 1003 W. Ninth St.

North Platte Airport Authority: Randy Billingsley, 520 E. Ninth St.; Corban Heinis, 716 E. 10th St.; Daren Wilkinson, 1920 W. Leota St.

North Platte Ward 1: Marcy Hunter, 237 S. Maloney Drive; Anna Junker, 202 Prairie Road; Cynthia OConnor, 1131 Tomahawk Road. Ward 2: Jo Ann Lundgreen (I), 2108 Burlington Blvd.; Thomas Hagert II, 1115 W. Fifth St. Ward 3: Mark Nicholson (I), 2204 W. First St.; Suzanne Donnally, 2820 Wright Ave.; Emily Garrick, 1118 W. Fifth St.; Mitch Wagner, 3404 West A St.

Brady: Ryan Stearns (I), DeAnn Vaughn (I), Sara Gentry, Necole Miller, Kathy Welte.

Maxwell: Monica Breinig (I), Todd McKeeman (I), Shaun Pagel (I), Justin Falcon, Levi Gosnell.

Hershey: Jason Bode (I), Jodi Seamann (I), Amy Wolfskill (I).

Sutherland: Janet Mueller (I), Eric Peterka (I), Tom Kelly.

Wallace: Joshua Friesen (I), Seth Hasenauer (I), Heather Strawder.

Gothenburg: Ryan T. OHare, Cozad; Blake Ristine, Gothenburg.

Sutherland: Janie Rasby, Harry Stewart.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Link:
Wondering who will be on the ballot? Here's the final list of candidates for the May 10 primary - North Platte Telegraph