Category Archives: Libertarian

End the hatred and the violence!

I didnt intend to research Kentucky Senator Rand Pauls father Ron Paul. I initially was reading about the early life of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes (Im assuming we all know he shot himself in the eye), and was surprised to learn that Rhodes had worked for Congressman Ron Paul in his Texas, and Washington D.C. offices and had been a volunteer in Montana during Ron Pauls 2008 presidential campaign.

I didnt think it was explosive information until I read the February 1, 2022 DK diary by David Neiwert in which he interviewed Rhodes ex-wife Tasha Adams. The way Adams explained it, the Ron Paul presidential campaign of 2008 was the seminal event that caused Rhodes to start the Oath Keepers.

What Adams said was: I think what he [Rhodes] saw was the energy of the Ron Paul movementhe saw the money, he saw the youth, he saw the people willing to donate their hours and their time, andyou know, typical narcissists, thats what they do, they absorb energy from people, right?and so I think he saw all that energy, he saw all that and he wanted to find a way to take it for himself.

It was news to me that when Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers in 2009, he went after the veterans, military personnel, and police officers he and Adams had met during the campaign, who were drawn to Pauls libertarian views. In fact, Rhodes focused on recruiting and encouraging them to remain true to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution and to disobey orders they considered illegal. Rhodes badly wanted to be their leader, and recruited many of them, who had nowhere to go after Pauls campaign ended in 2012, and before Trump declared his intention to run for president in 2015.

When I looked up Ron Paul, I was flabbergasted. I knew that he had been a Libertarian Congressman who had run for president three times; twice against former President Obama. What I didnt realize was that the former Air Force flight surgeon and OBGYN, was the orchestratorof a well-organized grassroots movement that had attracted some people who would later join the Oath Keepers and others who were just like the MAGAs, without the moniker or the caps. Neither did I know that for decades Paul had published (They were written under his name although he said he neither wrote them nor read them) and profited from political newsletters that were chock-full of conspiratorial, racist, and anti-government ravings. Just like Trumps slurs and lies, Pauls newsletters slurred and lied about revered people, like the Rev. Martin Luther King, and others.

According to author James Kirchick, who exposed the newsletters, and did a broader investigation into Pauls history of associations with all manner of groups and individuals on the extreme right, Ron Paul was truly an Angry White Man, and that was the title of Kirchicks book about him, which was published on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary.

Before writing this diary, I knew nothing about the United States Libertarian Party, which defines itself as a party that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. But, if the behavior of the right- wing Libertarians can be used as an example, they are all angry white people. During the Trump years, I had no idea that the MAGAs who participated in the Insurrection;refused to wear masks,get vaccinated, stop attending huge COVID spreading events, stop harassingparents in school board meetings and at schools, stop threatening and harassingelection workers, hospital doctors and nurses,politicians, POC, Muslims, Jews, and LGBTQ children and adults possibly considered themselves to be right-wing Libertarians. To me, they just were/are lawless, racist, violent, intellectually challenged, selfish, amoral, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-American Republican gun-toting extremists, seditionists, and/or domestic terrorists. And, I still believe thats true. I also didnt know that Libertarianism means that you believe in Originalism regarding the Constitution, which is the position of Clarence Thomas and Ron Paul, such odd bedfellows.

As a Congressman, Ron Paul's nickname Dr. No reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he would "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. This position frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. And, it meant that Justice Clarence Thomas, for most of his SCOTUS career until recently, also voted alone, even when he agreed with other conservatives because he made up his Originalist positions.

When Ron Paul launched his third and final presidential campaign in 2012, according to Mother Jones, his extremist positions were met with jeers from the party establishment. To name a few of Pauls positions: He didnt believe in the IRS or the Federal Reserve. He wanted to abolish half of federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor; Eviscerate Entitlements (He said Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were unconstitutional), Enable State Extremism (Allow states to set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school); Legalize Prostitution; Legalize Drugs (including cocaine and heroine); Keep Monopolies in Tact (Remove federal anti-trust legislation); Stop Policing the Environment; Get Rid of the Civil Rights Act; and End Birthright Citizenship, among other things. And, his foreign policy was American Isolationism.

And, the people who supported Paul, among others, were survivalists, white supremacists, anti-Zionists, anti-government extremists (who wanted no legal restraints), American Isolationists, Libertarians, conservatives, people in the military and law enforcement (they were some of his largest donors), young, disaffected Democrats and independents who loved his isolationist stance on foreign policy and libertarian approach to social issues, anti-war activists, and rich folks (who wanted no governmental restraints to restraintheir greed and hunger for power). I would imagine he also appealed to racists, homophobes, misogynists, and evangelicals. In effect, they were just like current day MAGAs and members of the Republican cult, although there were far fewer of them back then. (They must not believe in birth control or abortionbecause they seem to have experienced exponential growth.)

And, their behavior during Pauls campaign was similar to how Trumps MAGA supporters behave. Pauls boisterous supporters raised hell in caucus states. His cheering throngs were loud and clear at the presidential debates. And, even after Paul withdrew, the feeling was that his followers would continue to make nuisances of themselves at state conventions.

When Paul was asked what he wanted from a campaign, that he couldnt win, he said he wanted his followers to run for office, win, and continue to do that to expand the movement and its influence in government. At the time, main stream Republicans felt that Ron Paul and his followers would fade out of the picture. Four years later, the coalition of people Paul had gathered together had greatly expanded, and they elected Trump as president.

After reading all that I did, what I dont understand is why former Congressman Ron Paul never has never been publiclyblamedandpilloriedrighteously castigated for the inestimable damage his actions, newsletters, opinions, and followers have doneto our democracy, democratic institutions,and to human decency within our country. He also hasnt been publicly identified in MSM for being Stewart Rhodes role model. Nor has Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, his son the obstructionist, been tarnished for his fathers actions,opinions, and behavior, which is consistent with his own, although he has tried to rebrand himself for a larger audience. But, we should never forget how dangerous they both are.

As James Kirchick so eloquently wrote in 2018 when his book Angry White Man, was published: Long before Donald Trump emerged as the most prominent purveyor of a racist conspiracy theory concerning the countrys first black president, played political footsie with white supremacists, condemned globalism, sold himself to the masses as a guru of personal enrichment, attacked American allies as scroungers, and made overtures to authoritarian regimes like Russia, there was Ron Paul. The ideological similarities between the two men, and the ways in which they created support, are striking.

Original post:

Rand Paul's daddy Ron Paul, the Angry White Man, who spawned a generation of obstructionist haters - Daily Kos

Republican state Sen. Bruce Thompson, Democratic state. Rep. William Boddie and Libertarian Emily Anderson, a digital print operator at a publishing company, are running to replace Butler.

With the start of early voting approaching, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution spoke to Thompson and Anderson. A spokeswoman for Boddie said he was unavailable to talk with the AJC.

In a previous interview, Boddie said he wanted to restore trust in the agency, improve its technology and expand its historical role by providing more support for working parents and gig workers, who are typically not covered by the states unemployment insurance fund.

Thompson, who frequently cites his military and business experience, said he differs with his rivals on how to manage the department, but not on the need for change.

I think whether you are a Democrat or Republican that you agree that during the pandemic, the (Labor Department) failed the citizens of Georgia, he said. We can agree there needs to be a significant improvement.

That improvement will be partly about processes and potentially about the 1,134-person staff, said Thompson, who said he started, ran and eventually sold a number of companies, including Coverstar Automatic Covers, which sells covers for swimming pools, The Thompson Group Insurance and Bruce Thompson State Farm insurance company.

Despite contentious races at the top of the ballot for governor and the U.S. Senate and his own robust conservatism, Thompson said he doesnt think the office needs to be partisan. And despite his harsh criticism of the agencys past performance, he said he believes he can work with staffers.

Well do an assessment, he said. We plan to challenge them, but I want to be a cultivation agency, highlighting people and helping them.

Anderson, the Libertarian candidate, said she thinks the agency is understaffed.

I went to a career center years ago and I only went because I couldnt get anyone on the phone, she said. It was just compounded by the pandemic.

She said if elected, she would ask department staffers for ideas because they know the system best.

Where can we cut red tape? Where can it be streamlined to get you your benefits quicker? she said.

Many of the changes needed at the Labor Department require legislative support or federal help, such as funds for better technology and a longer period for payment of benefits, but the commissioner can lobby for assistance and promote fair treatment for those who need assistance, said Ray Khalfani, an analyst with the left-of-center Georgia Budget and Policy Institute.

The North Star for governance should start with the mission to expand duration, access and benefit levels, he said.

Because the Legislature has shifted workforce development to the Technical College System of Georgia, the Labor Department has seen its budget cut from $114.4 million during the past fiscal year to $51.6 million, officials said. Accounting for much of that cut was the narrowing of the agencys responsibilities, making its main mission the vetting of applications for jobless benefits and making sure that valid claims get paid.

In the years after the 2008-09 recession, that task wasnt so demanding. But then came the pandemic.

Much of the economy was at least temporarily shut down, and hundreds of thousands of Georgians were tossed out of work. The number of claims in an average week went from less than 5,700 to more than 215,000 for the next three months. It stayed in six figures until July 2020. While the federal government passed a series of emergency measures, it was left to the states to execute the new programs.

The Georgia Labor Department, with about half the employees it had during the previous recession, was overwhelmed.

Legislators, journalists and social media feeds were flooded with complaints from frustrated and scared workers waiting for benefit payments even as officials struggled to screen out thousands of fraudulent claims.

Another wave of layoffs may be on the horizon. While the weekly claims for jobless benefits are nearly as low as pre-pandemic, the economic outlook has grown murky with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates in an effort to stifle inflation by slowing the economy.

The candidates are slated to appear in an Atlanta Press Club debate on Oct. 18.

Here is the original post:

Labor commissioner's race: Down-ballot and up in the air - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Published: 9/11/2022 10:04:13 AM

Modified: 9/11/2022 10:00:17 AM

The primary election will be held Tuesday, Sept. 13. Times vary among polling places. You can find where and when polls are open in your town as well as see a sample ballot by checking the Secretary of State website (sos.nh.gov/elections/voters).

Because 2020 had a decennial census, boundaries of districts have changed, so you may not be voting for the same office that you did two years ago. Note that boundaries of the 10 wards in Concord changed a bit so theres a chance city residents wont be going to the same polling place as they did the previous election. Check the website to find out. The boundaries of Franklins 3 wards did not change.

Q. Judging from all the campaign signs, theres an election coming up but I havent been paying attention. Whats it all about?

This is the party primary. It chooses which people will be the Republican and Democratic candidates on the ballot in the general election in November.

They are the only two parties on the state ballot, by the way. The Libertarian Party was on it for a couple of elections but it fizzled out and many of its candidates moved to the GOP.

Q. Sounds like fun. Can I vote in it?

Any U.S. citizen living in New Hampshire who is at least 18 years old can vote. That includes people attending college in the state as long as this is your legal domicile. Its a little complicated; check details at the Secretary of State website (sos.nh.gov/elections/information/faqs/voter-registration-and-motor-vehicle-law).

You dont even need to have a permanent residence; the homeless are allowed to vote.

If youre a registered Republican or Democrat you have to vote in that partys primary. If youre an independent, like roughly 40% of New Hampshire voters, you can vote in either party primary only one, however; you cant vote in both and then re-register as an independent before leaving the polling place.

You can register as a voter at your polling place on the day of the election but bring the correct paperwork. That includes a legal ID such as a drivers license, proof of citizenship such as passport, naturalization papers or birth certificate, and evidence of living in the state such as a utility bill with your address on it or a rental agreement.

If you dont have access to the paperwork you can fill out an affidavit that affirms your status. Next year that will force you to vote on a so-called affidavit ballot but this controversial new law is not in effect in 2022.

You can vote also by absentee ballot if you have a legitimate reason not to be at the polls on Tuesday, such as being out of town or having a disability. The Legislature decided, however, that concern about COVID-19 exposure is no longer a legitimate reason.

Dont dawdle, however. Your ballot needs to physically be in the hands of your local town or city clerk by 5 p.m. on Election Day. New Hampshire no longer counts ballots postmarked on Election Day if the post office delivers them after the 5 p.m. deadline.

Q. This is just a party primary, though. Does it matter?

You bet it does.

Party primaries are at least as important as general elections because they shape the direction that the two political parties want to take. For people who vote straight party tickets in the general election, the primary is really the only time they can make a choice.

Thats especially true for New Hampshire Republicans this year, who have a number of wide-open races for seats high up on the ballot such as U.S. Senate and Representative. Democrats have more choices down lower on the ballot, where more GOP incumbents hold sway.

Many argue that party primaries are a big reason for the divisiveness that has infected American politics.

The number of people who vote in party primaries is relatively low turnout well below 20% is common in New Hampshire which gives more weight to people whose desire to push their comparatively extreme opinions means they never miss an election. This means that moderate candidates have a harder time getting on the ballot in November.

That is one argument for ranked-choice voting, a system used in Maine and Alaska. Ranked choice and other similar systems count a secondary vote when nobody wins a majority, forcing candidates to appeal to a wider range of people even in party primaries.

Read this article:

Everything (well, many things) you wanted to know about Tuesday's party primary election - Concord Monitor

All of us have been doing it this year: talking about the war in Ukraine.

Europe was the center of two global wars and now has its biggest war since World War II. A war that has disrupted global trade and caused spikes in fuel and food costs around the world. A war that has seen horrific atrocities. A war that has created 10 million refugees. A major modern war where the United States does not have direct military involvement.

It is well known that non-aggression is a core principle of libertarianism and that we are decidedly anti-war. Unfortunately we are often presented with a false dichotomy of how this works in practice: supposedly we must either take the position of the duopoly on wars of aggression, imperialism and the military industrial complex, or that we must seek to be a completely non-interventionist country waiting for foreign oppressors to murder our families before we can respond.

However, these are not our only options when dealing with foreign aggression, and we need to be able to present pro-liberty options, of which there are many. If we decide that the United States should support Ukraine against their Russian aggressor, there is still the question of what American support for Ukraine should look like from the point of view of a libertarian defense of non-aggression.

Within libertarian principles, any intervention must be consistent with the principles of non-aggression and consent. The American draft, aggression against innocent third parties, and wealth confiscation of Americans violate these principles.

Violations are happening right now, and to be effective in pushing back, we need to offer alternatives that are neither doing nothing nor all-out war. We have three options as a nation that we can use: embargoes and sanctions, letters of marque and reprisal, and material aid.

It is immoral to trade with bandits, thieves, or those responsible for slave labor. As such, libertarians can advocate for embargoes or sanctions against these activities and demand restitution for the victims (in this case Ukraine and its trading partners).

When a state like the Russian Federation deliberately obscures its theft by mixing morally created products and services with stolen products and services then we are right to sanction or embargo all of the comingled goods and services.

Furthermore, it is immoral to sell something knowing that it will be used to commit acts of aggression. You are free to give someone your firearm because it is your property, but you become an accessory to murder if you know they intend to use it to commit murder.

However, it is wrong under American principles to single out individuals who have done nothing wrong. Russian oligarchs deserve a day in American courts to show they have not been profiteering off of theft and murder; they deserve a right to due process the same as everyone else.

Now, the long practiced pro-Russian counter argument is whataboutism. For instance, what about the United States selling arms to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that murder civilians? What about selling guns to the ATF that they illegally give to cartels? Yes, we need to oppose all of those things too, and we need to be consistent about it. Embargoing all such regimes and the ATF makes that libertarian argument stronger instead of weak and hypocritical.

Marque and Reprisal is a license to outsource military action to a third party without direct involvement. It is covered in the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 as:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . . .

It is often derided as being legalized piracy, but it is actually the opposite. Marque and Reprisal was passed by Congress and signed by President Thomas Jefferson during the Barbary Wars to fight the Barbary pirates.

Those who kill and steal should not be protected by national laws from stealing and killing. As an alternative to occupying Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS, we could have passed letters of marque and reprisal making it legal for Americans to voluntarily fight ISIS without legal repercussions back home.

While this has limited usefulness against Russia, we should never forget that this is a tool we have to not start wars while also not ignoring aggression. Congress can declare open hunting season on the enemies of peace.

Finally, offering material aid for the purpose of defense is justified, while weapons sales for aggression are not. Just as it would not be morally wrong for your uncle to give a firearm to a friend of yours who had their house repeatedly burglarized. However, that doesnt make it okay for Uncle Sam to steal the money for that firearm from your wallet.

The problem of giving material aid to Ukraine isnt the aid, its how it is funded on the backs of struggling Americans. According to the 61st NDAA bicameral agreement, the United States will spend 777.7 billion dollars on the national defense budget for the fiscal year 2022. This money isnt just used to defend the United States from threats like Russia and China, we also use it to defend Europe and invade foreign nations for nation building exercises.

We need to stop, and Russias war in Ukraine provides us with an exit opportunity. Instead of increasing the budget to replace what we are giving Ukraine, we should draw down the military permanently. We should plan on giving Ukraine enough aid to reduce the future Russian military threat to both Ukraine and the United States.

If we were to reduce the 2023 NDAA to $500 billion, we could afford a one time donation this year of $250 billion to Ukraine and still substantially reduce the ongoing federal deficit. We need to remain focused on the fact that Bidens error from a pro-liberty perspective isnt helping a defender against a military aggressor. Bidens error is financing it with more inflation and debt.

We must stand up for the non-aggression principle. Whenever we are faced with the false dichotomy of war or pacifism, we must demand that we follow American principles and consider alternatives.

A range of issues related to liberty will be covered at Students For Libertys flagship event, LibertyCon International. If youd like to attend LibertyCon International in Miami this October, be sure to click on the button below to register and book your room with the discounted rate. You can use the code LEARNLIBERTY for 50% discount on your tickets!

We look forward to seeing you there!

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.

Read the rest here:

Libertarian alternatives to war with Russia - Learn Liberty

The limited government libertarians are at it again at the Department of Public Instruction hearing in Bismarck on Sept 9. Tony Gehrig fan, Jodi Plecity, wants a state-ran [sic] body to enforce her tedious rules and regulations of historical political correctness.

Fargo Republican Rep. Jim Kasper isnt satisfied with the law he wrote to ban CRT . It seems his frantic slapdash effort to abolish CRT was not good enough. He did, however, admit to not knowing much about it, only knowing what he heard or read about it, somewhere, sometime. Well golly, not this time. The Forum said in its article hes putting his foot down! He plans to add teeth to the ban so that complaints can be investigated and violators can be punished.

Big Police State Government, also brought to you by the GOP.

What the powers that be in North Dakota fear is the ugly history of capitalism being revealed. Their wondrous industrial capitalism that lifted humanity out of poverty began in the early 1800s. The Manchester UK cotton mills were their flagships. These were worked 14 hours a day, 6 days a week by impoverished and mostly Irish women and children. What of the cotton that also fueled this? Grown by masses of kidnapped and enslaved Africans on stolen Indigenous land. This is what the GOP and their libertarian cohorts want to cover up.

Ron Gaul lives in Fargo.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

Read more:

Letter: Here's what the GOP and 'limited government' Libertarians don't want you to know - INFORUM

Queen Elizabeth II has passed away after 70 years on the throne. This is the longest reign of any British monarch and the second longest reign ever for the monarch of a sovereign country.

The United Kingdom has been plunged into a period of national heartbreak. Whether it be on social media, in peoples homes, or on the streets, British citizens everywhere have voiced their grief and condolences at the news.

And yet outsiders, especially libertarians, seem puzzled by this ostensibly bizarre, sentimental attachment the British have towards their ruler. How can a nation be so enamored with someone above their station?

When thinking about politics, libertarians can often become too focused on dry, abstract concepts, and overlook ones that many people value, notably culture, community, and history.

Queen Elizabeth II was a great unifier among the British people throughout the countrys ups and downs over the past 70 years. She was a constant figure to rally around who provided soul and national pride, someone who bound together the cultural heritage of the Commonwealth that makes trade and communication easier between peoples.

A representative for Britain across the world, utterly devoted to her duty with resolve, consistency, and humility.

She saw World War II and the ensuing rebuilding of the country, the troubles in Ireland, the Cold War, the industrial unrest that brought Britain to its knees, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and more recently Brexit.

Yet to a libertarian, monarchy is a form of evil. If all humans are to be equal and free, then nobody should have unjustified authority over another; there must be legitimacy, and birthright is certainly not a source of legitimacy in the 21st century.

Of course, this is a completely valid principle on which to construct your politics. The problem is that the real world is not valid, nor is it principled. We are not starting from scratch; we are dealing with nations where institutions, customs, and networks have developed over time, all around the world.

Hierarchical authority exists in every system, whether it be democratic, fascist, communist, or even anarchist. The question of politics is to organize society so that said authority maximizes certain values.

Libertarianism is about the sanctity of the individuals right to go about their life unhampered, on the condition that they do not harm others. Thus, society should be structured around that very principle.

Democracy is an important facet of this: it is the way we attempt to ensure accountability and renewal in governance. But democracy is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end.

Libertarian principles have a strong current of anti-politics. Political decision making, where collective resources and will is used to achieve ends, should be minimized, while private decision making should be maximized.

I can think of no greater nightmare than unchecked, radical political forces having the audacity and entitlement to enact their vision on the populace to reshape a society in whatever twisted image they feel is right at the time.

So why would a libertarian want the highest authority to be political? Why would we make heads of government, who wield hard, active power, also heads of state?

It is often said that the monarchy is useless because it doesnt do anything, but that is exactly the point; it is the unmoving, apolitical bulwark against the political nonsense we all hate. The monarch occupies positions, not to enact anything significant, but to prevent others from occupying them.

I enjoy the fact that every week, the prime minister, the head of government, has to humble themselves and bow to someone who has been around for far longer than they have. I enjoy the fact that the armed forces swear allegiance to the crown, not the political wing of the state.

They are, in essence, conditioned to defer to the embodiment of the nation, the land, and its history, and not the short-termism, greed, and psychopathy of politics.

Constitutional monarchies typically do not have secret police or gross overreaches of government power. They consistently have solid records on stability, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

It is no coincidence that the execution of the Tsars led to the horrors of communism, and the execution of Louis XVI led to imperial France under Napoleon.

This is the great tradition of British politics, law, and philosophy. Unlike in most of continental Europe, we do not deal in grand political visions and all their chaos. We value discovery, cynicism, experimentation, and pragmatism, all anti-political, and thus libertarian values.

We have no time for heavy-handed, radical politics, where everything we know and grew up around is cast aside every four years and subject to whatever theories some maniac has read in a book.

As a libertarian Brit, I do not feel less free knowing the head of state is unelected.

I feel less free when the single-payer National Health Service (NHS) makes me wait half a year for anything beyond a simple doctors appointment.

I feel less free knowing how our horrendous bureaucracy and tax system eats up swathes of public resources.

And I feel less free when the government imprisons people for making fun of others on the internet.

These are the fault of politics and of government, and that is where our attention is most needed. Rest in peace Queen Elizabeth II, long live the King.

For more content on the topic of liberty and monarchy, be sure to check out our short video on the topic by clicking on the button below.

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.

Read more here:

You can be pro-freedom and a royalist - Learn Liberty

The following editorial published in the Dallas Morning News on Sept. 4:

The conservative Texas Supreme Court defended democracy.

Voters deserve better options on the ballot, but if the past two election cycles in Texas have taught us anything, partisan politicians will do all they can to keep candidates off the ballot if they dont conform to a party ideology.

Thats why it was hardly surprising to hear that Texas Republicans were trying to expel Libertarians from the ballot last week.

Thankfully, the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court saw through the gimmick employed by leading state GOP politicians, including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon, former Collin County Judge Keith Self and state Sen. Angela Paxton, among others.

The court dismissed an emergency petition to remove Libertarians from the ballot that came nearly four months after supposed violations of the Texas election code.

According to the petition, 23 Libertarian candidates allegedly did not pay their filing fees. The court decided that was irrelevant. Even if the candidates did not pay the fees, the request to remove them from the ballot is not an appropriate remedy at this stage of the election process.

Not only is it inappropriate, it is a blatant attempt to manipulate the system.

Republicans are hardly alone in trying to limit greater choice on the ballot. In 2020, Democrats were able to get candidates from the Green Party removed. In the same election, Republicans tried and failed to erase 44 Libertarian candidates.

This time, the state Supreme Court dismissed the petition due to untimeliness and the lack of explanation as to why the Republicans waited so long to bring the petition.

Access to the ballot lies at the very heart of a constitutional republic, the court wrote.

We couldnt have said it better, and we are grateful that our states conservative justices demonstrated that rule of law and respect for democratic processes are still the order of the day in Texas.

Access to alternatives is especially frightening to partisans these days. As big-party primaries increasingly serve extremist views, middle-of-the-road voters are looking for options where they dont have to hold their nose in the voting booth.

History tells us just why Republicans are so worked up this time. Patrick won reelection in 2018 by 5 percentage points over Democrat Mike Collier. A Libertarian candidate took 2% of the total vote.

This year, Patricks running against Collier again, and it is competitive again, so is there any wonder why he wants to shoo Libertarians?

Third-party candidates too often are too far out there to consider. But its becoming increasingly hard to distinguish how big-party candidates are any better. Sometimes they are more extreme.

The presence of third-party candidates on the ballot can serve as moderating influence, especially when it forces major-party candidates to think about appealing to a broader electorate.

That may not have been the Texas Supreme Courts intent. But it is the consequence. And for that we can be thankful.

But there is something we are even more thankful for. At the end of the day, the court protected democracy against a partisan ploy.

Follow this link:

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Texas GOP tried to keep Libertarians off the ballot - Victoria Advocate

THERE cannot be any debate about it. The Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army-National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF) is an enemy of the Republic. After all, it is a rebel group whose members took up arms with the main intent of eventually taking over if not a major part of the Philippine territory, then its entirety.

And this is where we have to take issue with how Sen. Loren Legarda has painted the CPP-NPA-NDF as otherwise.

The more fundamental offense committed by Legarda, to my mind, is that her cavalier treatment of the leftist ideology, where she collapsed a broad spectrum of different shades of red into one homogeneous entity, has done all leftist ideologues a total disservice. In her desire to defend progressive people espousing leftist platforms from being red-tagged, she, in fact, carelessly simplified and offered them up for further red-tagging.

We can only second-guess Legarda's real intent, but what she has done is practically summarize and homogenize the dynamism of what comprises the left, equating the ideas of those who adhere to left-wing politics and who espouse a more progressive political platform with the CPP-NPA-NDF. This is a highly irresponsible simplification.

To be left or right is determined by someone's view of the economy. Being on the left means believing that globalization should primarily serve humanity instead of the interests of global corporations, that corporate interests should be regulated to protect the environment because they wouldn't do so if they are left alone, and that corporations should have social responsibility and should not be fixated on profits only. A leftist believes in economic regulation and in protecting the marginalized, even if it means interfering with the operations of the free market. Hence, leftists believe in minimum wages and price controls. They believe in taxing the rich more, and using taxes to finance social programs that would even include investing in the arts. While some leftists are socially authoritarian, most leftists are socially libertarian. They adhere to individual freedom, and would support divorce, same-sex marriages and abortion. They oppose the death penalty.

Get the latest news delivered to your inbox

Sign up for The Manila Times daily newsletters

Being an activist for these causes, and questioning state authority, when done peacefully and under the ambit of laws, should not and cannot be considered as dangerous to the Republic. Under these rubrics, I am personally a leftist who is also a social libertarian. My score in the political compass test is a minus 6.88, with minus 10 being the score for being perfectly leftist, and a minus 7.23, with minus 10 being the score for being perfectly libertarian. I am not even a centrist by all accounts.

There has been too much confusion in the way popular and ordinary discourse has branded the left as essentially communist, and then further committing an egregious error of associating communism only with the armed left. Some even go to the extent of associating the left in general, and communism in particular, with authoritarian regimes. This is the ground from where red-tagging emerges as a pejorative, where liberal-progressives who espouse leftist and libertarian beliefs end up being lumped together with Marxist, Leninist and Maoist rebels, and worse, terrorists.

This corruption of political labels and categories has to end. Being leftist is different from being an armed rebel, in the same manner that being an activist does not necessarily mean that one has taken up arms to topple the government. Likewise, it is a fallacy to contrast communism with democracy, considering that there are communist and socialist parties that compete in democratic elections in countries like India.

The ideal response to red-tagging is to clarify that not all kinds of red should be tagged as enemies of the state. Environmental activists who propose green economies tend to be leftist in orientation, and so are feminists and gay activists. Organized labor unions tend to be leftist in orientation. The hatred being espoused by many diehard Duterte supporters and Marcos loyalists toward liberal activists, that even translate to their dislike of the US Democrats, is misplaced simply because they are premised on fallacious imaging and assumptions. There are many good people who are fighting for socially relevant causes that under these misinformed rubrics would fall in the category of enemies of the state. A cursorial look at history would reveal that practically all major social benefits that people now enjoy, from wage protection to social amelioration policies, are largely the result of leftist and progressive activism. These include giving ayuda (financial assistance) and educational assistance.

It is here that Senator Legarda's statement may have done a lot of damage, when she irresponsibly and carelessly implied that good leftists and social progressives engaged in social activism and legitimate criticism are in the same basket as the armed cadres who impose revolutionary taxes, bomb cell site towers, conscript children and arm them, all with the intent of eventually toppling the government. What she did only further forced the misinformed hatred toward anything left to fester, and its adherents to double down in their prejudices and biases.

Having said this, it is important to point out that much as taking up arms can never be countenanced, there has to be an understanding of the backstories of people who rebel against government. While one cannot condone political violence, there should be an open mind to the reasons why people rebel. Certainly, being displaced by land grabbing capitalists, and being targeted for persecution by paramilitary groups on the mere suspicion of being a rebel, would push people to take justice in their own hands. It is hypocrisy to justify Chao Tiao Yumul's rampage as an act of desperation but condemn those who rebel. Much as we condemn the violence, it is a fact that the state failed them.

The solution to political violence is not red-tagging but to make sure that the interests of the marginalized are served by legitimate institutions of the state. And the better response to red-tagging is to show that some types of red are, in fact, essential in achieving that end.

Read the original post:

Red is a spectrum - The Manila Times

PSC GIVES GRANT OVERSIGHT TO UTILITIES; AGENCY SAYS IT IS A VIOLATION: A recent decision by Marylands Public Service Commission allowing electric utility companies to access millions of dollars in federal grants without public oversight or input violates the commissions regulatory responsibilities, the state agency representing ratepayers said this week in its latest filing. Aman Azhar/The Baltimore Banner.

DEATH OF ELECTIONS BOARD MEMBER COMPLICATES AGENDA: Malcolm L. Funn, one of two Democratic members of the State Board of Elections, died unexpectedly Tuesday of complications from hernia surgery. He was 77. The Calvert County residents death comes at a critical time for the state elections board, as it works to certify the results from the July 19 primaries and sets rules and procedures for the upcoming general election and it adds some uncertainty to the boards short-term agenda and work product. Josh Kurtz/Maryland Matters.

LIBERTARIAN: LONG-SHOT WIN TO GOVERNORs HOUSE: Libertarian David Lashar acknowledges his bid to become Marylands next governor is a long shot. But, he says, this is not a no-shot situation. Nationally, Democrats are feeling the drag from President Joe Bidens low approval ratings and an economy heading for recession. Closer to home, Republicans have nominated a candidate for governor, Dan Cox, who attended then-President Donald Trumps Jan. 6, 2021 rally at the Ellipse before a mob overran the U.S. Capitol building. Pamela Wood/The Baltimore Banner.

POLITICAL NOTES: SCHULZ CONCEDES, PRETTY MUCH: As counties across Maryland completed ballot counting from the June 19 primary on Friday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Kelly Schulz issued what amounts to a concession statement that night. Robbie Leonard conceded in the Democratic primary for Baltimore County states attorney on Friday, after having a slim lead in initial returns on election night. Danielle Gaines and Josh Kurtz/Maryland Matters.

OPINION: THANK OUR ELECTION WORKERS: With some races still undecided and more ballots left to count, the 2022 Maryland primary election is not yet behind us. But as the final votes are tallied, we should all take a moment to thank the thousands of our neighbors who rolled up their sleeves and made this election possible. Every poll worker, election judge, canvasser, volunteer, candidate and vote counter deserve our deepest thanks for making democracy work. Nate Tinbite, Ananya Tadikonda and Matt Post/Bethesda Beat.

PEROUTKA CONSPIRACY THEORIES DATE TO 9-11: Michael Peroutka, the Republican Partys nominee for Maryland attorney general, hosted a series of five radio shows in 2006 devoted to arguing in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories questioning if the terror attack was the work of an elite bureaucrat who had demolition charges in every building in New York City and even suggesting if those who died after a hijacked plane hit the Pentagon were killed elsewhere. Em Steck and Andrew Kaczynski/CNN-TV News.

BLAIR LEAD WIDENS, THEN SHRINKS IN MO CO EXEC RACE: In the Democratic primary for Montgomery County executive, pitting David Blair against Marc Elrich for the second time in four years, Blair, at the end of Saturdays canvass, held a wafer-thin 21-vote lead, down from a 134-vote edge at the conclusion of the tally a day earlier. Louis Peck/Bethesda Beat.

HAIRE BEATS McMILLAN IN ARUNDEL EXEC PRIMARY: Edgewater County Council member Jessica Haire became the Republican nominee for Anne Arundel County executive Friday, defeating former Annapolis Del. Herb McMillan. Dan Belson/The Capital Gazette.

OPINION: COX WIN PUTS HOUGH IN A TOUGH SPOT: Republican Sen. Michael Hough, who was unopposed for the nomination for Frederick County executive, awoke to this nightmare scenario on Wednesday after the election: If he refuses to support far right wing gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox, he will alienate the GOP base in the county, making it impossible to win. But if he backs Cox, he will alienate a sizeable minority of Republicans, a number of independents and virtually all Democrats, making it extremely difficult to win. Editorial Board/The Frederick News Post.

HANNA THROWS SUPPORT TO BATES IN CITY STATES ATTY RACE: As expected, defense attorney and former prosecutor Roya Hanna is ending her independent candidacy for Baltimore states attorney, all but ensuring Democratic nominee Ivan Bates will become the citys next top prosecutor. Hanna had dropped out of the Democratic primary race in March but planned to run as an independent in Novembers general election. There are no Republicans running for states attorney. Alex Mann/The Baltimore Sun.

BATES HAS A PLAN FOR SQUEEGEE WORKERS: Ivan Bates said he has a plan to get squeegee workers into diversion and employment programs like those championed by Mayor Brandon Scott as soon as he can take office in January. It would rely on issuing citations to the workers for violating Marylands pedestrian laws. Lee O. Sanderlin/The Baltimore Sun.

SHELLENBERGER WINS: Baltimore Countys incumbent states attorney beat back an upstart primary challenger and will move on to the November general election. On the final day of counting, incumbent Scott Shellenberger added 182 votes to his nearly 2,000 vote lead and edged out Robbie Leonard. Bryan Sears/The Daily Record.

FORMER DEPUTY BEATS SHERIFF IN CITY: Theres a new sheriff in town. After a week of early voting, primary night vote tabulations and six days of counting mail-in and provisional ballots, challenger Sam Cogen emerged as the winner in a heated contest for Baltimore sheriff that pitted him against his former boss Sheriff John Anderson, the citys sheriff of more than three decades. Emily Opilo/The Baltimore Sun.

ANNAPOLIS CITY HALL ENTRANCE PROTOCOLS TIGHTENED: After several difficult confrontations with a man who makes frequent visits to Annapolis City Hall, where he has recorded heated encounters with city employees and posted them on YouTube, Annapolis officials are overhauling security protocols. From installing a metal detector to ending Mayor Gavin Buckleys open door policy, visiting City Hall will be a different experience. The new security measures went into effect July 22. Rebecca Ritzel/The Capital Gazette.

JUDGE JOSEPH MURPHY, 78, DIES: Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr., former chief judge of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals who ended his judicial career in 2011 as a judge on the state Court of Appeals, died of cancer Wednesday at Stella Maris Hospice. The Cockeysville resident was 78. Fred Rasmussen/The Baltimore Sun.

See more here:

State Roundup: PSC gives grant oversight to utilities; death of elections board member adds uncertainty to work; Libertarian a long-shot for...

Near the end of July, Andrew Yang - whose previous political projects include an unsuccessful run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, an unsuccessful run for the 2021 Democratic mayoral nomination in New York City, and what initially looked likely to be an unsuccessful new "third party," the Forward Party - announced a re-launch of that last effort.

While it's still called the Forward Party, Yang's vehicle is merging with two other (also previously unsuccessful) "third party" efforts, the "Renew America Movement" (co-founded by Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican governor of New Jersey, who will co-chair "new" Forward) and the "Serve America Movement" (chaired by former Republican congressman David Jolly of Florida).

The merger, Yang tweeted, creates "the biggest 3rd party by resources in the United States."

He may be right about that: The Libertarian Party, which previously held claim to the title of "third largest political party in America," seems to be circling the drain after a four-year internecine fight culminating in a Memorial Day weekend "takeover" by a Republican astroturf operation, the "Mises Caucus" (disclosure: I've been a partisan Libertarian since 1996, but have re-registered in my state as "no party affiliation" and cut off my meager financial support for the national organization pending a hopeful libertarian re-"takeover" of the party).

But are the "resources" Yang speaks of enough for the Forward Party to realize its vision?

In a July 27Washington Post op-ed, Whitman, Jolly, and Yang tick the usual "moderate" boxes. They're against "polarization." They believe most Americans "want to move past divisiveness and reject extremism." They want (and are trying to create) a party that "reflects the moderate, common-sense majority."

And therein lie two problems.

First, while most Americans seem to agree that "polarization" sucks, most Americans are also, well, polarized. They may think of themselves as "centrists" or "moderates," but so do their neighbors, who all have very different ideas about where the "center" really is.

Second, to the extent that a "center" exists, it's already well-covered by a Venn diagram of Republican and Democratic policies and constituencies.

As the late L. Neil Smith once wrote, "great men don't 'move to the center' - great men move the center." Within the context of electoral politics, the same is true of any party that hopes to actually create systemic change. The Overton Window (the spectrum of the politically "acceptable"), like most windows, has its handle on the edge, not in the center. Change comes from the edge and its ability to change the minds AT the "center."

The news may not be all bad for the Forward Party's prospects, though. While its rhetoric is "centrist," its stated priorities focus on individual freedom and its specific policy proposals - Ranked-Choice Voting, Nonpartisan Primaries, and Independent Redistricting Commissions - are at, not beyond, the edge of the aforementioned Overton Window: Good ideas that most people like but that the "major" parties refuse to touch.

Will they excite voters enough to move the needle? Time will tell. But time may be running out on American democracy.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

Read the original post:

Third party hopes to move things 'forward' | Columns | reporter.net - Lebanon Reporter