Category Archives: Libertarian

Brian R. Morgan| Gaylord

Local school boards across the country have been bombarded by right-wing parents and their indoctrinated children, who oppose any type of mask mandate or vaccination efforts.

A closer look at this phenomenon reveals that it's a national effort by libertarian and very conservative Trump-style Republicans attempting to sow discord and division in our nation. So far they have succeeded. Some even have threatened violence against health department personnel who have attended such meetings.

Here in Gaylord, the Northwest Michigan Public Health Department has become the target of efforts to remove public health officials and/or deny them funding for simply doing their job. The opponents of mandatory masking in school are largely ignorant of medical science and care not that if their child is not masked, not only is that a risk to their own child, but to other classmates as well. They represent a very selfish and shortsighted attempt to obstruct public servants who are trying to save the lives of children in our public schools. There is no more of a noble effort than that. Not only do these right-wing malcontents lack medical knowledge, they also apparently lack legal knowledge as well, having to walk back several attempts at crippling our local health department when advised by attorneys that their actions would either be illegal outright or not wise in general.

Our nation is in the beginning stages of a civil war largely due to the ignorant ramblings of trailer park partisans like those who have attended these meetings locally. They don't represent a majority of voters. Unfortunately, many good county commissioners are justifiably afraid that these people will put forth a popular rabble rouser against them in the next Republican primary and might just win. They figure its better to appease these people and perhaps control them a bit rather than lose an election and give them complete authority to further intimidate and wreck units of state and local government.

It's time that good people in our community speak up and confront these bullies!

Link:

Letter: It's time to speak up against ignorance - petoskeynews.com

Israel's Education Ministry invited a right-wing think tank to provide consultation at a policy meeting, drawing criticism from ministry officials because of the unusual amount of influence given to a partisan organization.

The invitation given to the Kohelet Forum, a highly-influential right-wing research center, marks the first time the group is officially recognized as an organization which provides consultation services to the ministry.

Why Christians are vanishing from all across the Middle East. LISTEN to Haaretz podcast

The meeting dealt with ways of implementing the "milestones" plan, which spells out the objectives of the Israeli school system and what tools are available in order to achieve them.

The milestones document was published last summer, shortly before the school year began in September. According to its introduction, it serves as a condensed policy document intended to assist school principals in planning the school year. The document contains a long list of goals and targets decided upon by the ministry, connected to learning, social and emotional fortitude, and the development of an Israeli identity.

Besides the Kohelet Forum, the discussion was attended by senior officials from the Education Ministry and the representatives of other institutions such as the Avney Rosha institute for school principal training and the Mandel School for Educational Leadership.

The brainstorming session was headed by the head of the ministrys pedagogic administration, who was the one to invite the Kohelet Forum. The pedagogic administration is considered one of the key branches of the Education Ministry because it is responsible for the pedagogic activities of all schools in Israel, from first through twelfth grade. This includes the development and allocation of the required resources that will enable the implementation of ministry policies; the planning, administration and assessment of schools; and the formulation of policies.

The discussion on Monday focused on two of the goals laid out in the policy document: the closing of gaps in schooling and the promotion of gender equality, starting at a very early age. The deputy director-general of the ministry, Inna Zaltsman, wrote in an invitation obtained by Haaretz that the meeting served as "a mechanism for conducting discourse around systemic educational issues, and for obtaining diverse perspectives relating to the promotion and implementation of relevant issues.

The Kohelet Forum representative at the meeting was attorney Avital Ben-Shlomo, a research fellow at the Forum and the head of a team researching educational policies. In May, she participated in a conference held by an organization called National Vision, devoted to combating the roots of socialism that are still deeply entrenched in every aspect of our public and private lives. According to people familiar with the details, Ben-Shlomo argued that closing gaps between pupils should be done on an individual, not a systemic basis. She told Haaretz: Its a welcome sign that the Education Ministry is inviting people working on the ground, as well as researchers and people using different approaches to education. Beyond this, Im not interested in saying anymore.

Ben-Shlomo is one of the founders of a coalition for autonomy in education, an organization led by the Kohelet Forum, which is striving to achieve complete autonomy for schools, in administration, pedagogy, budgets and employment, along with allowing parents to choose their childrens school. Such stances, at least in their maximalist version, have not garnered much support among educators, who warn that they are an expression of absolving the state of any responsibility, a sure-fire way of increasing gaps. Last July, Education Minister Yifat Shasha-Biton spoke at a conference in which this coalition for autonomy was one of the organizers.

Its unacceptable that an organization with a controversial agenda take part in shaping general policies, said one source familiar with the details. He described the invitation of the Kohelet Forum to internal debates as a very unusual move. The Education Ministry refused to reveal who else was invited or participated in this brainstorming session, but knowledgeable sources said that there were mainly Education Ministry officials, senior regional and national administration officials, as well as representatives of the Avney Rosha institute for training principals, jointly run by the ministry and the Yad Hanadiv Foundation, and the Mandel Center for Educational Leadership. The latter two are organizations that are linked to the school system mainly through implementing policies, not shaping them.

According to another source, when you talk about closing gaps, its important to be as precise as possible in order to reach the root of the problem. One has to see the data, and use this as a basis for formulating policies. Ungrounded declarations create background noise, deflecting discussions from their goals.

Two weeks ago, Haaretz revealed that the Kohelet Forum was providing briefs to right-wing representatives on the committee for selection of judges. According to sources who participated in the committee, the current round of appointments, and earlier ones, employed the services of the Forum in order to collect and analyze all the data available regarding a candidate for the bench, including an analysis of his or her conservatism, as well as their political opinions.

The Education Ministry refused to respond to questions on this matter from Haaretz.

Originally posted here:

Israel's Education Ministry consulting with libertarian right-wing think tank - Haaretz

Economy watch: Inflations Long-Lasting Pain

When it comes to inflation, the word transitory started out as a forecast and has now turned into a punchline, snarks Jason Trennert at RealClear Politics. The bills coming due for nearly 13 years of unconventional monetary policy used to fix a variety of issues, from social justice to rising sea levels, for which it is at best ill-equipped. Add in unrestrained deficit-spending to deal with a global pandemic and regulatory policies in the United States and Europe, and it should be of little surprise that the CPI has been running at levels of greater than 5% for six months. Saddest of all is that theres no more regressive tax and no more potentially destabilizing political force than inflation. In the end, the poor always pay more. And once started, expansionary fiscal and monetary policies are very hard to stop without economic pain. Like the Hotel California, you can check out any time you want, but you can never really leave.

Researchers: Parents Are Key to 2022 Midterms

School closures are persisting, and not just because of Covid-19, observe Michael Hartney & Renu Mukherjee at City Journal and their research shows that could be devastating for Democrats in the 2022 midterms. In a Virginia focus group after that states recent gubernatorial race, participants cited school closures as their main motivation for backing Republican Glenn Youngkin. And in Virginias 132 school districts, in which they compared Youngkins performance to Donald Trumps in 2020, closures were associated with significant movement toward the Republican: Where schools were open for less than a month of in-person learning, Youngkin outperformed Trump by nearly 2 percentage points. Nor will parental frustrations abate soon. Neither party can afford to ignore families who want to return to the pre-pandemic normal brick-and-mortar school buildings functioning again in the old way.

From the right: Humiliated by Jussie Smollett

Now that Jussie Smollett has been found guilty of faking an anti-gay, racist hate crime against himself, recall how the left rushed to judgment about his absurd claim because it was ideologically convenient, snipes PJ Medias Matt Margolis. President Biden demanded we no longer give this hate safe harbor. Vice President Kamala Harris called the attack a modern-day lynching, while Sen. Cory Booker suggested the incident was proof that Congress needed to pass an anti-lynching bill. Democrats want to believe the worst of this country and the worst of [Donald] Trump and his supporters. But will they now admit Jussie Smollett made them look like fools?

Libertarian: Musk Gets Government Right

Tesla CEO Elon Musk may have unseated free speech-loving warlock Jack Dorsey as Americas richest, staunchest government skeptic, quips Reasons Liz Wolfe. Musk thinks it would be better not to pass President Bidens Build Back Better Bill, calling the federal budget deficit insane and opposing subsidies. Yet, while its good to hear him question government intervention, Musk has benefited handsomely from subsidies himself, so this looks a bit like hes pulling the ladder up behind him to stymie encroaching competitors. Indeed, his business thrives on handouts, mandates and regulations. Still, Musks suspect motivations for ending subsidies dont make the substance of his comments less true. When he says things like the government is simply the biggest corporation, it shows hes thinking correctly.

Legal beat: Bidens Vax Mandate Loses Again

A fourth federal court has ruled against one of President Bidens vaccine mandates, notes Jonathan Turley at Fox News, this time finding hed exceeded his authority in mandating the vaccine for all federal contractors. Expect a showdown in the Supreme Court, where three justices have already expressed skepticism over the mandates. White House confidence of victory in the end remains an exercise of hope over experience in such litigation. In all, as those three justices put it, if human nature and history teach us anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Page

Read this article:

Inflation's long-lasting pain and other commentary - New York Post

GREENFIELD A small number of Libertarians in Hancock County are making plans to ramp up the Libertarian Partys local presence, with the objective of winning races or at least increasing the profile of the third-party alternative.

The Hancock County Libertarian Party recently held a meeting to elect officers, and Luke Lomax became its new chairman. Lomax also serves as the 6th District representative on the Libertarian Partys state committee, and he said theres an opportunity in Republican-dominated Hancock County for Libertarians to make inroads.

Were very much looking forward to the opportunity to present a third option on that ballot, or a second option, Lomax said.

Two Libertarian candidates plan to run in upcoming elections Nathan Luke for Hancock County Council in 2022, and Larry Silver for mayor of Greenfield in 2023. Lomax said there will also be Libertarians on the ballot in 2022 running for attorney general of Indiana and for the U.S. Senate.

Weve kind of been working to revive the party on the local and state level, Lomax said.

Theyre hoping to capitalize on the performance of the party in Indianas 2020 election for governor, when Libertarian candidate Donald Rainwater won 11.4% of the vote. Thats well above what its presidential candidate, Jo Jorgenson, scored on either the state or national level. Many Rainwater voters, including some in Hancock County, said they cast their votes in protest of Gov. Eric Holcombs COVID-19 policies, such as lockdowns and mask mandates, which they felt were overly restrictive.

Lomax said the Hancock County Libertarian Party currently has about 18 active members, but he doesnt think the small size will prevent the party from continuing to grow or from helping its candidates mount campaigns.

Theres some county affiliates out there that are doing some really great stuff with half of the people that weve got, he said.

In general, Libertarians favor a smaller role for government, lower taxes and less regulation. Spending is a major concern for Larry Silver, the first candidate to declare that hell be running for mayor when Chuck Fewell retires in 2023.

Luke, who operates a pinball machine company and lives in Greenfield, is waiting for the process of county council redistricting to be completed before he formally declares which seat he will be running for, Lomax said. Districts 2 and 3, currently held by Republicans Mary Noe and Jim Shelby, will be up for a vote.

As Silver campaigns for the mayoral position, he said he hopes to emphasize that Greenfields tax rates for citizens could be lower if the city spent less.

Im going to keep highlighting the fact that the citys wasting too much money, Silver said.

Silver criticized the city government for maintaining a $1.5 million rainy day fund, intended to fulfill unexpected financial needs. If there is money left over from an annual budget, he said, the city should return the balance to the citizens.

Government truly is a nonprofit, so there shouldnt be any surplus at the end of the year, he said.

He also said the city spends too much money on parks, and on its mayor. If Silver were in the mayors office, he said, he would cut the offices salary from around $89,000 to about $55,000, and eliminate the offices travel budget.

Silver said the largest part of his campaign will involve talking to citizens by going from door to door and appearing at public events. He said hes optimistic that the Libertarian Party, and his bid for the mayors office, will find support in Greenfield.

We have a lot of volunteers on board, and we have quite a bit of support from the state party, Silver said.

Read more here:

Libertarians will expand local election efforts - Greenfield Daily Reporter

Libertarians should prioritize the Bitcoin strategy above all others.

Libertarians generally believe in the non-aggression principle (NAP), meaning that it is wrong to initiate aggression against someone elses person or justly-acquired private property. What does Bitcoin have to do with the non-aggression principle? The chief violator of the NAP principle is the state. And the chief reason the state is so large and so powerful is that it has access to cheap debt. Bitcoin fixes this.

Lets explore:

If you have been forced into some form of lockdown, restriction, travel-ban, mask-wearing, jab-taking compliance over the last two years of Hysteria-19, it is obvious that states around the world have become extremely powerful.

As Robert Higgs outlined in his classic Crisis And Leviathan, the state expands dramatically during crises, but it doesnt necessarily give all the freedoms back after the crises. Weve notably seen this ratchet effect with 9/11 and the Patriot Act, which forever changed travel and various other freedoms that we used to have.

But what use is the desire for a state to expand its remit and reach, without the funding for such an endeavor? In a more honest system, the state and its politicians would have to explicitly tax the population, which is not so popular. The modern day fiat fractional reserve system enables cheap debt funding of bureaucracy and governmental enforcement of the papers please mindset.

What do you think would happen if Bitcoins number go up technology kept operating and fiat money kept devaluing? Government bureaucrats and thugs would experience reduction in their purchasing power, and it would effectively act as a right sizing of government.

Fine, but even still, its mostly true to say that you want a smaller-sized state than what we have today. Starving the beast is the only way to enforce some accountability here. Governments and complicit media have grown too large, too powerful, too influential and they have made the population weak and scared over time.

Even if you dont believe that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is The Way, most libertarians would be happier if the state was smaller. So, why not push for adoption of the technology that will do precisely this?

Trying to win at the ballot box has not been a fruitful strategy for most libertarians worldwide. The population simply does not understand the issues of socialism and statism, and they will gladly vote for more government-sponsored redistribution if the cost artificially appears to be low enough.

How many times have you genuinely seen libertarian directions being pursued politically and winning as a political strategy? Other than the Ron Paul U.S. presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012, I have barely seen it. And, being fair, those campaigns were not a win politically, they were more of a win in supporting and engaging new ranks of libertarians into the movement.

Even if we could somehow convince the world or the U.S. government to adopt a gold standard, theres not really anything stopping them from claiming its an emergency and that we need to drop the gold standard and temporarily close the gold window. In this way, Bitcoin provides stronger assurances about our money than gold ever could.

When you run a Bitcoin node, it checks all of the rules of the system and it is a more decentralized form of validation and enforcement of the rules. Were less reliant on government and big banks or big gold vaults to defend the integrity of the system. Think of it like: Bitcoin is less corruptible than fiat money or the gold standard.

Titus Gebel outlined the idea of free private cities on my show (SLP161). Imagine an opt-in city where you pay a subscription fee upfront with the rules set upfront as well. The state or public services in this instance would be far smaller than the current governments of the world, and there would be more competitive pressure between Bitcoin citadels or free private cities to ensure inhabitants are getting a good deal.

Alternatively, there are efforts in the direction of seasteading. Others like agorism-style strategies, and in this case, Bitcoin can obviously play a role in being able to support the private entrepreneur.

There might even be something to the idea of a Bitcoin and libertarian policies advocacy. But it doesnt work without Bitcoin as an important part of the mix.

Without Bitcoins monetization continuing apace, there will be little incentive for politicians and political parties to support liberty-friendly policies. But in a world where Bitcoin is rapidly rising, and job opportunities are present in the industry, politicians like Texas Governor Greg Abbott will come out in support of the idea that Texas should be a competitive state for Bitcoin.

Stack sats and build alternatives to statism. This means that you should set up your automated sat-stacking plan, whether thats with Swan Bitcoin or whoever else.

Or, if automated sat stacking isnt your thing, you can earn bitcoin by selling your goods and services for sats, or you can mine it too. Buying non-KYC coins is another way to do it, too, either by meeting people at Bitcoin events, meetups, conferences or using platforms like Bisq or Hodl Hodl.

The point is to enact regular and steady accumulation of bitcoin, and HODL as much of it as you can to restrict the supply. In doing so, you are speeding the process of hyperbitcoinization: the monetization of Bitcoin, the non-state, free market money.

When you dont like the current options, you have to go build something that makes it better. This is what Satoshi did. Bitcoiners follow this example, and if youre a libertarian, you should too.

This is a guest post by Stephan Livera. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

See the original post here:

Why Libertarians Should Prioritize The Bitcoin Strategy Above All Others - Bitcoin Magazine

Our beloved Reason Roundtable listeners did not hold back: per Reasontradition, they sent in questions (and one limerick) and editors Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch have now given their answers. This is all in the spirit of Reason's annual webathon, in which we try to persuade you to make a tax-deductible donation to the nonprofit foundation that publishes our work. In fact, an anonymous, generous donor offered to match the next $100,000 you give us! Or, bid now to win the first-ever Reason NFT, if that's more your thing.

What did the editors do as soon as they were vaccinated? Which fictional characters best represent them? Are there new Reasonpodcast shows on the horizon? Can Peter really segue almost anything into a Marvel reference? (Spoiler: Yes.) Cocktails, American literature, relationship advice (it is cuffing season after all) and more all right here on this special video podcast. Want to not just hear but also see the collective groan in response to the phrase "2024 election"? Check out the video version here.

You definitely, maybe, possibly will be a better, smarter, more interesting, and maybe freshly date-able person after consuming this podcast. So please give us some money so we can do this all again next year, okay? Okay.

Cheers and libertarian love,

The Reason Roundtable

Audio production by Ian KeyserAssistant production by Regan TaylorMusic: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

See more here:

You Asked, We Gave You Libertarian Solutions, Star Trek Characters and...Dating Advice? - Reason

Johnson is sold to voters as a libertarian full of bonhomie but his Government is suppressing freedom of speech and movement

Peppa Pig World, we learned from Prime Minister Boris Johnson in his speech to the CBI, is a place with disciplined schools, safe streets, virtually no crime. Everything and everyone conforms to the rules. I loved it, Johnson told his audience. It is very much my kind of place.

Johnson has a reputation for being a great libertarian leader. The Coronavirus lockdowns, we were told, were an affront to his liberal tendencies. Hes the enemy of red tape, the ruiner of regulations. And yet, his fantasy of Peppa Pig World tells a different story. Despite the narrative we are fed, Johnson falls far short of his libertarian self-image.

Lockdowns aside, which were necessitated for public health more than political expediency, one of Johnsons first acts as Mayor of London was to ban alcohol on public transport. A policy welcomed by some, but not indicative of a free-wheeling approach to freedoms. As Prime Minister, he wasted no time in unlawfully shutting down Parliament.

How can a libertarian proponent of freedom of speech close down the space dedicated to democratic debate?

Central to Johnsons authoritarian tendency is his Governments new Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill. Last week, the Home Secretary Priti Patel introduced new amendments to the Bill that strengthened police powers to shut down and even criminalise protests.

The amendments include criminalising locking on, with specific emphasis on people locking themselves to transport infrastructure. The move appears to be a response to Insulate Britain protests, and protests against deportation flights, both of which involve people attaching themselves to transport, railways or roads. The police will enjoy new powers to stop anyone they reasonably believe may lock on to, or obstruct, major transport works.

Locking on has been a vital part of peaceful and nonviolent protests for centuries, from suffragettes chaining themselves to Parliaments gates to Greenham Common women attaching themselves to the famed military bases fence.

The vague wording of the proposed law means it could feasibly be applied to people linking arms and creating a human chain, even holding hands, as well as the more obvious acts of attaching oneself to a physical object. In doing so, it undermines a long history of nonviolent resistance where protesters put their own bodies on the frontline of the cause they believe in.

Such vagaries are a problem throughout the Bill, which allows the police to stop a protest if it creates too much noise and disruption, or causes someone serious annoyance and serious inconvenience. The problem is, one persons inconvenience is another persons no-bother. The lack of specificity when giving the State wide-ranging powers to prevent peoples freedom of speech, assembly and movement is deeply troubling.

The new clauses in the Bill dont stop there. Police will be given new powers to stop and search people at protests to avoid serious disruption, or if they believe a protester is carrying a prohibited object such as those used to lock on to infrastructure. Refusing could lead to a 51-week jail term.

Then theres the use of the Serious Disruption Prevention Order or SDPO. This order can be imposed on anyone convicted of a protest-related offence which, as the above demonstrates, could now include linking arms while chanting and marching through the local city centre.

According to the Bill, an SPDO can be applied to someone whose activities are likely to result in serious disruption. This means a person can be prevented from even getting to a protest, so long as theres enough suspicion they may well be disruptive should they ever get there.

The SPDO severely restricts peoples freedom of movement. Those who have an order imposed upon them can be forced to report to the authorities whenever the courts demand it, as often as they demand it. They can be prevented from going to certain places, socialising with certain people even blocked from using the internet to encourage people to carry out activities related to a protest. Something as simple as tweeting about a protest could be treated as a violation of the order, which lasts for two years.

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and support quality, investigative reporting.

The assault on the right to non-violence and peaceful protest exposes a hypocrisy in the Conservative Party.

Back in 2018, there was an attempt by Labour to introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics designed to protect women from harassment while accessing healthcare. Then Home Secretary Sajid Javid called the measure disproportionate. More recently, Sir Desmond Swayne said they would be a curb on freedom of assembly and Congleton MP Fiona Bruce accused the zones of threatening hard won freedoms of speech, assembly and democracy.

All but one of the Conservative MPs who voted against a Ten-Minute Bill in 2020 to introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics voted in favour of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Bruce did, however, express concerns about the Governments plans, not least because they would curtail the ability of people to protest outside abortion clinics.

Its not the only example where the Conservative Partys commitment to freedom of speech seems to privilege anti-rights activism over other types of speech or protest. The Department of Educations white paper on freedom of speech in universities quoted research by ADF International an organisation that claims to fight for freedoms while seeking to deny women freedom of choice when it comes to healthcare, and LGBTIQ people freedom to marry.

Then there was the news this week that individuals who criticised the current Government are not welcome in Whitehall a move in direct opposition to the white paper on freedom of speech in universities.

Ultimately, the current Conservative Government appears more interested in the freedoms of the few than the many. This is a Government in favour of the freedom to rip up red tape and wreak havoc on regulations, let alone the freedom to circumvent due process in order to deliver crony contracts. But when it comes to the freedom of the public to protest these same Government actions, it becomes clear how one-sided its commitment to liberty is.

The Prime Minister Boris Johnson has built his reputation on a liberatarian pose fuelling a culture war where his Government rails against cancel culture and accuses the left of being snowflakes who are intent on shutting down any speech or statue they dont like.

The truth is that Johnson is an authoritarian in libertarian clothing. He may claim his passion for freedom of speech when it allows him to attack wokeness. But as the head of a Government that wants to clampdown on hard-earned freedoms to protest, the narrative of Johnson as an instinctive liberal is as fictional as an episode of Peppa Pig.

Byline Times is funded by its subscribers. Receive our monthly print edition and help to support fearless, independent journalism.

New to Byline Times? Find out more about us

A new type of newspaper independent, fearless, outside the system. Fund a better media.

Dont miss a story

Our leading investigations include Brexit, Empire & the culture war, Russian interference, Coronavirus, cronyism and far right radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

See more here:

New Clauses in the Policing Bill Expose Johnson's Faux Libertarianism Byline Times - Byline Times

In this February 26, 2007 file photograph, Charles Koch, head of Koch Industries, talks passionately about his new book on Market Based Management.

Bo Rader | Tribune News Service | Getty Images

The libertarian political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, has been rocked by an alleged extramarital affair involving a departing leader, as well as an exodus of key network donors while the organization undergoes major changes.

CNBC also has learned that Arlington, Virginia-based Americans for Prosperity, which has more than 3 million volunteers spread across 35 states, recently quietly settled a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in the group's North Carolina branch.

In response to this story, the group's spokesman Bill Riggs told CNBC that they found an "amicable resolution" in the lawsuit and defended the organization's workplace environment as "respectful, rewarding, and inclusive."

This week, Tim Phillips announced he was resigning as president of Americans for Prosperity after 15 years at the helm, citing what he called "challenging personal matters."

Phillips is said to have had what's described as an extramarital affair with a Virginia-based Republican official, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. These people declined to be named in order to speak freely about a private matter.

Claims of the affair came after Americans for Prosperity announced it had conducted an internal investigation into Phillips.

The group would not confirm or deny to CNBC what it had uncovered during the probe of Phillips. Instead, it provided the same statements that it to the Washington Examiner, which first reported Phillips was quitting.

Phillips said in a statement provided by the group: "This morning, I announced my resignation as president of Americans for Prosperity in order to focus on some challenging personal matters that require my full attention. It is difficult to leave this organization, but doing so now is in everyone's best interest."

Phillips did not return repeated requests for comment from CNBC.

"While the underlying issues were personal in nature,it was a matter of integrity that violated our principles," said a person within AFP who is familiar with the matter.

"AFP's internal investigation did not uncover any financial malfeasance. This was a personal issue and did not, to our knowledge, impact anyone else internally at AFP," the person said.

This person chose to speak on the condition of anonymity in order to openly discuss broad themes of what Phillips allegedly did.

With Phillips gone, there remain only two board members listed on the 501(c)(4) nonprofit group's website, including Mark Holden, who is listed as chairman. The group's CEO, Emily Seidel, is also a member of the board. AFP's 2020 990 tax disclosure lists at least six board members prior to the resignations.

In an internal announcement late last year, which has gone previously unreported, the organization said that two board members resigned from AFP's board. Frayda Levy, one of the board members who resigned, had been listed as the board's chair on previous tax disclosure forms. Jim Miller, who has ties to the Koch-backed Citizens for a Sound Economy, also resigned from the AFP board.

The announcement said that Levy would continue as a donor partner and active participant in AFP's New Jersey branch. Those leaving the board were moving on to have an active role on a formal advisory committee.

Several major donors have stepped away from financing Koch backed organizations as they have adjusted their political messaging during the administration of former President Donald Trump.

AFP has been backed by Koch and Republican-leaning donors for more than 15 years.

Its 990 tax filing for 2020 shows the group raised just over $58 million that year and had net assets of about $3 million by the end of it. AFP, like other similar nonprofits, does not publicly disclose the names of its donors. It finished 2020 with more than $64 million in revenue compared with about $54 million it received in 2019.

The Stand Together Chamber of Commerce, another Koch-backed group, disclosed in its 2020 990 form that it donated $40 million to Americans for Prosperity.

The group's spokesman told CNBC that AFP is gearing up for the upcoming 2022 elections.

"AFP has grown into a world-class organization with hundreds of staff across 35 state chapters with more donors and more resources than we've ever had before. In 2020, AFP and AFP Action engaged in and won more races than ever before, and we fully expect to exceed those numbers in 2022," Riggs said in an emailed statement.

During former President Barack Obama's administration, the group ran ads targeting the Affordable Care Act, his signature health care law that became known as Obamacare.

The group also saw major victories under Trump, including reformations to the tax code and the appointment of three Supreme Court Justices whom AFP openly supported.

But AFP also clashed with Trump when it came to trade issues such as the implementation of tariffs that the then-president imposed.

And since the start of Trump's administration in 2017, AFP has publicly said it is open to working with Democrats as well as Republicans.

However, during the 2020 election, the group's related but separate super PAC largely backed GOP contenders at the federal level, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. This year, it supported Glenn Youngkin in his victory over Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia gubernatorial race.

Some donors who have previously supported Koch-backed entities have signaled that they are not interested in supporting AFP or Koch-linked groups in the future.

Wealthy businesspeople such as Randy Kendrick, Diane Hendricks, David Humphreys, Bob Luddy and Chris Rufer have suggested to allies that they have no immediate plans to contribute to a Koch-backed group, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Kendrick could not be reached for comment.

The other donors did not respond to emails seeking comment.

AFP's controversies aren't limited to the departure of Phillips and some donors.

Last year, former AFP official Anna Beavon Gravely sued the group in North Carolina state court for gender discrimination, retaliation and wrongful discharge.

A spokesman for AFP said that the two parties settled the lawsuit amicably.

"We reached an amicable resolution in each matter. AFP is committed to a respectful, rewarding, and inclusive work environment," Riggs said.

Gravely claimed that she did not get a promotion to North Carolina state director in 2018 despite her clear qualifications for the job, which was given to a man with less experience, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by CNBC.

Gravely was eventually fired by the same man who got the job she was gunning for, the suit says.

The complaint takes aim at Phillip Joffrion, who was once a regional director at AFP. The group's public 990 form from 2016 lists Joffrion and says he was paid just over $125,000 that year. He is not listed on subsequent forms.

Joffrion, the suit says, was the authorized hiring manager for jobs that included the group's North Carolina state director post, the job that Gravely hoped to secure permanently after filling it in an acting capacity.

Gravely "was made aware of the existence of prior complaints sounding in gender discrimination and/or sexual harassment," the suit says.

The complaint highlighted a 2017 dinner during which Joffrion allegedly ridiculed Gravely for having a "rigid" personality and critiqued her for being too "process-focused."

Joffrion later told Gravely that one of the reasons she did not get the job was because of a concern related to her humility, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also refers to a separate class-action lawsuit filed against the organization for workplace discrimination.

It is unclear where that purported other suit was filed. The now-former AFP official who is said to be part of that complaint is based in Arkansas.

Shortly after Gravely's lawsuit was filed, AFP moved to have the complaint transferred to North Carolina federal court.

After the case was transferred there, AFP said in a court filing that the group "specifically denies that [Gravely] was subjected to any discriminatory or retaliatory conduct."

Court filings show that Gravely dismissed her lawsuit, with the consent of AFP, dismissed her lawsuit "with prejudice" in late September.

Such dismissals, which bar a plaintiff from refiling the same kind of suit against a defendant, are routinely done in cases where the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement of claims.

Gravely declined to comment to CNBC. Her attorney did not return a request for comment.

View original post here:

Influential Koch network rocked by an alleged affair scandal, donor departures and a discrimination lawsuit - CNBC

Mace and Greene. Illustrated | Getty Images, iStock

Rep. Nancy Mace is frequently in the news. On Thursday, it was the apparently sudden exit of her chief of staff and campaign manager. And for much of the week, the libertarian-ish South Carolina Republican has been feuding with the wilder and woolier members of her conference, especially the ubiquitous Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)

The seemingly trivial spat is actually a glimpse into the future of the Republican Party. How the party should deal with self-promoting lawmakers like Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is a proxy for its bargain with former President Donald Trump. The GOP's small but vocal liberty wing split over Trump, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) largely aligning himself rhetorically (if not always voting the MAGA line) and former Rep. Justin Amash (first R, then L-Mich.) ultimately leaving the party in protest.

Mace was initially inclined to stand with Rand on the side of Trump, but since Jan. 6 she has drifted, however fitfully, in the Amash direction to the degree that the 45th president would like to see her unseated in a primary. This was the fate that befell her predecessor, former Rep. Mark Sanford, another quietly libertarian-leaning Republican, whose criticism of Trump ended a political career that had improbably survived scandal. (Trump's interference also caused the district to fall to the Democrats for two years, though redistricting will make this outcome less likely.)

While some Republicans of Mace's ilk hoped to capitalize on Trump's less hawkish foreign policy rhetoric, others had deep disdain for the low-brow populism he unleashed within the party. They'll be forced to take a stand if he runs in 2024. It's not clear that mud-wrestling with Trump's imitators is necessary, however. Trading insults with Greene gives her more oxygen while alienating Mace from conservatives who want their representatives to give liberals no quarter. Supporting primary challengers against Greene, Boebert, and pals has the potential to do more good than launching a flame war.

Story continues

And however either type of fight plays out, it's worth watching. We can be fairly sure the Republican future isn't Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and the establishment, neoconservative throwbacks she leads. The debate is whether the GOP should steer toward Greene or Mace, and that debate is probably unavoidable.

Nancy Mace vs. Marjorie Taylor Greene is the fight for the future of the GOP

Trump is apparently a fan of Dr. Oz's Senate candidacy

Fox News personality Lara Logan condemned for likening Fauci to Nazi doctor

See the article here:

Nancy Mace vs. Marjorie Taylor Greene is the fight for the future of the GOP - Yahoo! Voices

The respected libertarian Cato Institute annually releases their list of most free and least free states and no surprise, the bluest statesCalifornia includedare at the bottom of the list. Read more and check out their interactive map here: https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

From the report: The overall freedom ranking is a combination of personal and economic freedoms.

ANALYSISCalifornia is one of the least free states in the country, largely because of its long-standing poor performance on economic freedom. However, Californias economic freedom has improved since the late 2000s and, perhaps as a result, so has its economic performance. California has long suffered from a wide disparity between its economic freedom and personal freedom ranking, but it is not as if the state is a top performer in the latter dimension. Indeed, it is quite mediocre on personal freedom, although its recent decline in rank has more to do with other states catching up and passing it than any backsliding in the state itself.

The rest is here:

California NOT land of the free. Here's the proof - KABC