Category Archives: Libertarian

Unlike the protagonist in the Jimmy Stewart movie, Austin Petersen isnt entirely innocent when it comes to politics. In fact, you could say hes been angling for office for quite a while now, an opinion even more apparent since he announced he was going to challenge Democrat Claire McCaskill for her Senate seat in 2018.

But for those who arent entirely familiar with this former actor turned Libertarian activist, let me introduce you to the man who could permanently change Washington in ways Donald Trump never could.

Born in 1981, Petersen has played a pivotal role in libertarian politics since the early 2000s and has even developed something of a feud with his former boss, libertarian-Republican stalwart Ron Paul, which placed him in the middle of a fight over classical liberalism in the United States.

Even though Petersen originally studied musical theatre at Missouri State, his interest and activism in the libertarian movement led him to run in his partys primaries for the presidency in 2016. He ended up losing on the second ballot to Gary Johnson, but that didnt quench his thirst for public office. So, on July 4th, 2017, Petersen announced his bid for the US Senate, but as a Republican.

The decision shocked many of his supporters. However, Petersens large connections to media outlets such as Reason, Libertarian Republic (which he started), and Fox News was most likely a factor in the largely positive coverage he received.

Another big part of this good reception, in an otherwise difficult situation where youre trying to sell leaving your own party, is probably the interesting way Petersen is presenting himself.

Despite the rising tide of populism, libertarian-Republicans and self-proclaimed Constitutionalists such as Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ron Johnson are gaining leverage in the Senate. Petersen is currently following the same strategy himself.

These new Republicans have actually been around for a while, predating the MAGA movement and even in some cases the Evangelical surge during the Obama era. They represent a fresh dedication to economic conservatism, and in some cases even partially abandoning strong social positions.

In an interview with Reason Magazines Nick Gillespie, Petersen said many of these things himself.

Itd be good to have a more Libertarian Republican in her place to vote on the issues that we are about, Peterson said while discussing why he was better suited for the Senate than his potential Democratic opponent, Claire McCaskill.

Petersons presence in the Senate could lend a hand to this relatively small block of Republicans, and with battles over tax reform and healthcare still being hammered out, its very possible Petersen could help shift the balance of an extremely important war for the soul of the GOP.

The most important question is, Can this former Libertarian take his seat among the lions of the Senate?

Despite the fact that he could possibly get some high level endorsements and help from the aforementioned legislators, Petersen has a tough electoral mountain to climb.

He faces a potential primary field filled with strong Republican candidates like state attorney general Josh Hawley, whos much more likely to receive help from the state party. Even though Peterson has a bigger profile nationally than probably any of his future foes in the GOP primary, that doesnt necessary mean Republicans will be so accepting.

Even if he somehow managed to win the nomination, Missouri, despite being a tossup state, has a true conservative base that could view Petersens libertarian stances on social issues in a negative light.

Whoever the victor ends up being, the real enemy at the end of the day will be the wily Claire McCaskill, a rising star within the Democrat party. McCaskill, unlike other noticeable Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Tulsi Gabbard, is known more for her moderate positions and ability to be dependable than her progressive record.

McCaskill first gained fame in 2006 when she beat Republican incumbent James Talent in her run for the Senate with a margin of 49.6% to 47.3%. She was the first ever female senator from her state, one of only 3 Democrats to hold that seat since 1953, and was one of the first senators to endorse Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, a series of record breaking feats that were topped off by perhaps her greatest asset: shrewd political skills.

When youre a Democrat that represents a state that has a past of going red on the national level, you develop a pair of very sharp political claws.

McCaskill truly showed off her effectiveness at shredding an opponent when she first defended her seat in 2012. Perhaps it was more Todd Akins own quotes (If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.) that sabotaged his challenge, but McCaskills ability to use his words against him saved her from being poached by the GOP. She trounced Akin with 54.7% of the vote, surviving a red wave that gave Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney that same year the state with 53.9% of the vote.

Despite running against someone who could be considered the smartest Democrat in the Senate, Petersen might be able to ride his way to victory by energizing the Trump voter base. The former businessman from New York won the state during the 2016 presidential race by almost 20%, a landslide victory.

However, in order for this strategy to work, it would mean Petersen would have to stray a little from his libertarian roots. But since hes already left his own party to have a shot at victory, it seems the former Fox News producer might do just about anything to win it. Or, perhaps in this case, trump it.

Featured image: Wikipedia

* Caleb Mills is an analyst, journalist, and political strategist from the American Midwest.

Like Loading...

See the rest here:

Mr. Petersen Goes To Washington - Being Libertarian

Washington Times

Inside the Beltway: Libertarian health care: Repeal and deregulate ... Washington Times Libertarians have entered the health care fray, vowing to repeal and deregulate to create a system better than Trumpcare or Obamacare. (Libertarian Party) ... For first time, Libertarians to run for countywide officesDelco News Network all 2 news articles »

Link:

Inside the Beltway: Libertarian health care: Repeal and deregulate ... - Washington Times

ROANOKE, Va. (WDBJ7) Cliff Hyra is making his first campaign visit to western Virginia since he won the Libertarian nomination for Governor.

On Saturday, he plans to campaign at the Steppin' Out street festival in Blacksburg, and he expects to find a receptive audience there.

Hyra wasn't invited to first gubernatorial debate and doesn't have the campaign finances of his Democratic and Republican rivals, but he says people are responding to economic proposals that include a state tax exemption on the first $60,000 of household income.

"If they're only going to know one thing," Hyra told WDBJ7 in an interview Friday afternoon, "they should know the difference in the tax plans between me and the other candidates. I am proposing that the average family here in Virginia pay no income tax. So that's a huge change. That's a sea change."

Hyra attended Virginia Tech, where he met his wife Stephanie. Hyra says she is now 37 weeks pregnant, expecting the couple's fourth child.

Read this article:

Hyra makes first campaign visit as Libertarian candidate for Governor - WDBJ7

Roughly 100 anti-Trump protesters demonstrate peacefully in Market Square on February 19, 2017, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Jeff Swensen / Getty Images)

The Democratic Socialists of America, a traditionally progressive socialist organization founded in 1982, has seen it's membership increase multiply from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 members in the past year following the Bernie Sanders campaign and the subsequent election of Trump. Now, many on the left are looking at the organization as a barometer of sorts for the fate of the larger left. In addition, many are viewing the DSA convention this week in Chicago as a key turning point within the organization. Coming out of the DSA is a new caucus called the Libertarian Socialist Caucus. The LSC promotes a vision of "libertarian socialism" -- a traditional name for anarchism -- that goes beyond the confines of traditional social democratic politics. I asked John Michael Coln, a member of the group's provisional organizing committee, to talk about its vision and goals.

Adam Weaver: The DSA has a range of tendencies and is sort of a "big tent" of socialist politics. What made you want to form a Libertarian Socialist Caucus (DSA-LSC)? Tell us about yourself and what you see as the political influences of the group.

John Michael Coln: I've been a member of DSA for over a year; some of us involved have been members before the "Bernie and Trump bump." So it's not a matter of anarchists infiltrating and joining DSA ... but anarchists who have been members of DSA all along. We want to organize them as we believe that libertarian socialism is democratic socialism.

Once upon a time, before Trump and Bernie Sanders, there had been a thing called the Left Caucus which aimed to organize all the DSA members who wanted to push the organization to the left. It was good, I was part of it, but it's now basically defunct because with so many new members joining DSA, many are already to the left of the DSA. But what the existence of the Left Caucus proved was that caucuses based on ideological interests had a place in DSA. We want to be the first caucus within the DSA that had a more specific vision, that openly talks about a specific political direction that they would move towards. Rather than say we want to move the DSA to the left, we [are saying we] want to move to the left with specific positions and a specific manner. And not everyone who identifies with the left is going to agree.

Speaking for myself here, I believe that the LSC has an especially important role not just in promoting its own ideas, but also in setting an example for others for how to do caucuses right in being internally democratic, in co-existing, cooperating with and having cross-membership with other caucuses. Caucuses can be hubs of organizing activity, hubs of political education, hosting reading groups, etc. There's a dimension of caucuses that are akin to being political parties within the larger DSA.

It's important to note that you can't be in the LSC unless you are a dues-paying member of DSA. Most of our members were people who were already members of the DSA. There are some people who, because we announced our existence, joined DSA, and that's a consequence of the libertarian socialists already in DSA who were getting organized.

At the end of the day, the Libertarian Socialist Caucus, or any other caucus for that matter, is not an alien entity within DSA; rather it's a caucus of DSA members united around a shared interest.

What do you see as the commonalities and differences between the politics that you are looking to put forward and DSA's current politics and organizing? What are you looking to change?

I would contest the framing of the question a little bit. It's important to note that beyond the idea of big-tent socialism, the DSA doesn't actually have a party line. Outside observers, though, act as if DSA does, but the reality is it doesn't have a set of positions that you have to accept. Rather, the DSA is an internally democratic organization of socialists that adjudicate their disputes through liberal parliamentary norms of conflict resolution. In other words, if we disagree, like on the convention floor, it will be argued out on the floor between delegates. It's not a centralist organization where there's a party line and if you disagree you have to leave.

The problem is that, at this point, it's difficult to say exactly what LSC stands for because we don't have official positions. We just finalized our membership, and because we are democratic we haven't reached positions yet. There are probably shared values that we have that people in DSA don't have, and we want to promote those values and make them more popular.

These [values include] skepticism of the state, a critique of the state and seeing the state as going hand-in-hand with capitalism. A second component is a belief in radical democracy with a higher standard of democracy, one which is more rigorous. A lot of people believe that democracy is just elections. But we believe democracy means more than electionsthat it is participatory.

We want to advocate and convince people by the strength of our ideas that there are things DSA should be doing and should be promoting. We want to see more things like directly democratic neighborhood assemblies, worker cooperatives, participatory budgeting, radical syndicalism and municipalism that DSA is currently not promoting, as well as the things DSA is already doing, like organizing workplaces and fighting bosses and landlords. We see these as the fullest embodiment of the values that unite the different kinds of socialism within the DSA under its banner.

The DSA's convention is happening in Chicago this weekend. With over 40 proposals and with the huge influx of new members who have entered the organization, many observers see this convention as a turning point. Can you tell us what you see as the key issues at stake that will be debated at the coming convention? How is DSA-LSC leaning on these issues?

I do want to answer this one by saying, like I said before, LSC doesn't have an official position yet. The very first event that we are organizing [Friday] morning is our first general assembly where members of LSC will follow a procedure presented to our membership to make decisions about convention debates. We are going to go one-by-one through all of the floor debate questions that will happen at the convention. If our assembly can arrive at a consensus, we are going to ask the delegates present to vote in accordance with that.

We don't know how many will show up exactly, but we are expecting, based on our listserve, something like 20 confirmed delegates, and we are allowing any DSA member to attend.

A major decision at the convention will be elections for the 16-member National Political Committee of DSA, which acts as a sort of national level policy and steering committee for the organization. Right now there's the competing Momentum/Spring Platform and Praxis slates, individuals drafted and signed onto a "Unity Platform" document, and now members of DSA-LSC are putting forward their candidates as well, called DSA Friends and Comrades. What do you see as the competing visions represented?

I can't say anything on our official position on them. Speaking only for myself, I think that Momentum and Praxis both have some pros and they both have some cons. They are all good organizers and comrades that have done good work. But I personally disagree very strongly with what I would see as the centralizing tendencies in Momentum's positions. But I'm only speaking for myself, and I know for a fact that other LSC members have different opinions.

What I would say about both Momentum and Praxis is that the way they came about is that [their candidates] only represent themselves. My hope is that in the future LSC sets an example where candidates are selected by caucuses and are accountable to them rather than self-selecting. And I think that's important because the platforms of the slates have shaped the convention as a whole, and it's more democratic if those conversations arise from larger groups of members within the DSA.

The DSA Friends and Comrades coalition is something that came out of LSC members and was organized by LSC members informally and hasn't been approved by the group. We wish them well, and some of us will vote for them and promote them on our social media, but they don't represent the LSC. Next convention we aim to organize a primary and democratic process to put forward a slate.

Go here to read the rest:

A Turning Point on the Left? Libertarian Caucus Debuts at ... - Truthout - Truth-Out

The post-World War II period between the 1950s and 1970s was an era of great sociopolitical contrast. The civil rights movement, Marshall Plan, Peace Corps and Lyndon Johnsons Great Society juxtaposed heavily against the Cold War, Vietnam War, segregation, war on drugs and perceived enlargement of federal powers. Amidst the idealistic baby boomers-powered counterculture struggle across major cities and college grounds, libertarianism experienced a minor renaissance in American politics. Described by Ayn Rand as hippies of the right," they began to converge in small groups to explore and expound on the ideals of liberty, individual rights, limited government, laissez-faire economics, and the evils of coercive taxation and imperialism.

One such group appeared at the home of David F. Nolan. However, unlike other informal libertarian gatherings, Nolans group-of-five (featuring his then-wife Susan, Luke Zell, Hue Futch and Dale Nelson) was focused on establishing a formal political structure to espouse the merits of libertarianism to the nation. Although the majority of their meetings were held in Nolans home in Westminster, Colorado, the Libertarian Party was formally established in Zells home in Colorado Springs on December 11, 1971. Interestingly, the decision was only made after over a 100 people on Nolans bumper-sticker sales mailing list, whom theyve written to, responded positively to the idea of joining the new party. A month later, Nolan held a press conference to introduce the party to the nation.

However, the new party wasnt warmly received by the libertarian community initially. In fact, Murray Rothbard, the godfather of the modern American libertarian movement, was downright critical of the party. But the Libertarian Party slowly gained the trust of the community, even as the leadership fought a bitter identity war in its early days. Less than ten years later, it fielded a libertarian presidential candidate against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. Ed Crane and his running mate, David Koch (the younger brother of Charles Koch) received an admirable 921,128 votes in the election.

Although the partys electoral success was rather limited during its first few decades, it managed to create a platform which allowed the dissemination of libertarian ideas to a broader audience on a wide range of issues. It also gave a home to Americans disillusioned by the big two political parties. In a 2001 interview, Nolan stated that our greatest success is that we have created the only viable mechanism now existing to offer a reasonable hope of stopping the imposition of a very authoritarian system in this country that might last for generations.

In terms of ballot access and number of registered party members, the Libertarian Party is arguably the biggest third-party in the country for the last three decades. With the high unfavorability ratings of the candidates of the two major parties and rising anti-establishment sentiment, many Libertarians are quietly confident that the partys presidential candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, will perform strongly this November.

See the original post:

Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates 2016

Washington Times

Libertarian health care: Repeal and deregulate Washington Times A third combatant has entered the fray, however: The Libertarians now are weighing in on the challenge to create a workable, healthy health care system out of the loose ends and leftovers of Trumpcare and Obamacare. Although Libertarians might ... For first time, Libertarians to run for countywide officesDelco News Network all 2 news articles »

See original here:

Libertarian health care: Repeal and deregulate - Washington Times

Public DomainWhen President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, he praised his nominee for being "widely regarded as the most prominent and intellectually powerful advocate of judicial restraint."

It was no exaggeration. During his decades-long career as a law professor, federal judge, and legal commentator, Bork routinely preached the virtues of a deferential judiciary, arguing that in the vast majority of cases "the only course for a principled Court is to let the majority have its way."

Where Bork led, most legal conservatives were ready to follow. Judicial deference, or restraint, became a rallying cry on the legal right.

Borkean deference still holds sway today in many quarters. But it is also increasingly under fire from libertarian-minded legal thinkers who want the courts to play a more aggressive role in defense of individual liberty and against overreaching majorities.

Case in point: The new issue of Governing magazine profiles Don Willett, the Texas Supreme Court justice who recently appeared on Donald Trump's shortlist of potential U.S. Supreme Court candidates. Willett "is witty and approachable, and he's huge on Twitter," writes journalist Alan Greenblatt. "He's also one of the most influential jurists in the country right now."

Willett's rising influence signals Bork's declining favor. It shows that libertarian legal ideas are gaining ground.

To be sure, Bork and Willett are both "conservative" and both have ties to the Republican Party. But they differ in important ways. Bork wanted judicial minimalism; Willett wants judicial engagement. "The State would have us wield a rubber stamp rather than a gavel," Willett complained in the 2015 case of Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, "but a written constitution is mere meringue if courts rotely exalt majoritarianism over constitutionalism."

Texas Supreme CourtAs Greenblatt notes in his profile, "Willett is pretty blunt about his overall intent. He's a champion of individual rights, claiming a central role for the judiciary in protecting those rights against state encroachment." Bork, by contrast, was obsessed with limiting the judiciary's role. If Bork's great enemy was judicial activism, Willett's great enemy is judicial pacifism.

The differences don't stop there. According to Bork's interpretation, the 14th Amendment offers zero constitutional protection for economic liberty, which means that the courts have no business striking down government regulations on 14th Amendment grounds. Since the amendment does not explicitly refer to economic liberty, Bork reasoned, it does not protect it. When "the Constitution does not speak," he insisted, we are "all at the mercy of legislative majorities."

Willett takes a different view. "The Fourteenth Amendment's legislative record," he has pointed out, "is replete with indications that 'privileges or immunities' encompassed the right to earn a living free from unreasonable government intrusion."

Willett has even thrown shade in Bork's direction: "A conservative luminary, Bork is heir to a Progressive luminary, Justice Holmes, who also espoused judicial minimalism. Both men believed the foremost principle of American government was not individual liberty but majoritarianism." Willett clearly ranks individual liberty first.

Thirty years ago, when Borkian judicial deference was in its heyday, the conservative legal mainstream was largely hostile to libertarian legal ideas. That Don Willett is now championing those same ideas and is at the same time under possible consideration for a Supreme Court seat demonstrates just how far the dial has moved in a libertarian direction.

Go here to read the rest:

From Bork to Willett: Is the Conservative Legal Movement Going Libertarian? - Reason (blog)

The Senate unanimously approved a bill Thursday that would allow people facing life-threatening diseases access to unapproved experimental drugs, providing a victory for libertarian advocates who see government regulators thwarting patients rights.

The bill, S. 204 (115), passed swiftly and easily in a Senate bitterly divided over health care. The powerful pharmaceutical lobby, which had quietly opposed an earlier version, kept an unusually low profile. The industry has been focused on fighting off any efforts to go after drug pricing, which President Donald Trump has said he would tackle.

Story Continued Below

The bills chief champion, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), declared it a victory for individual liberty over government, and for the right to hope. Its also been championed by the libertarian Goldwater Institute, and Vice President Mike Pence, who tweeted that it gives patients hope & a chance.

The legislation would allow patients with serious diseases anything from a late-stage cancer to multiple sclerosis to request access to experimental drugs directly from drug companies without having to go through the FDA, which has its own compassionate use program that approves 99 percent of requests.

But the right-to-try bill doesnt require drugmakers to make the experimental treatments available. In the 37 states that have similar laws on the books, Goldwater can point to only one doctor who says he has utilized a state right-to-try law for a patient and that medicine was being made available to certain patients by the FDA anyway.

Thats led some critics to call it right-to-ask and it may give desperately ill people false hopes.

This bill is inherently deceptive, Alison Bateman-House, a medical ethicist at New York University who led the charge against Johnsons bills, wrote in an email. What [patients] have a right to (and did long before this bill) is to ask drug companies for permission to use their experimental drugs outside of clinical trials. If the drug company says no, both before and after this legislation, that's the final word: neither the FDA nor the courts have to power to make companies provide access to their experimental drugs-in-development.

And if the experimental drugs do become widely used outside the standard clinical trial system, it could undermine some of the rigorous science needed to know whether medicines are safe and effective. Many drugs that start the clinical trial process flop. Some are harmful.

Get the latest on the health care fight, every weekday morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

You have a situation where patients think they want to take a risk and dont necessarily understand what risk they are taking," said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, which lobbied against the bill.

And while the revised bill would require annual reports on whether the drugs used by these patients helped or potentially harmed them, patient safety experts are concerned it may not be enough.

But its hard for lawmakers to say no to hope.

Opposing right-to-try laws is akin to opposing motherhood, apple pie, and the American flag; you just dont do it and expect to be re-elected, David Gorski, an oncologist at Wayne State University, wrote in his blog on science-based medicine. Its easier for a senator to vote for the bill than to explain to constituents the nuances of why the new law might not help them and might even harm them.

PhRMA issued a statement but declined to say whether it now supported the bill, which must still be approved by the House after the summer recess. We appreciated the opportunity to work with Sen. Johnson and look forward to continuing to work with his office, it said. The revised Right to Try legislation that passed the Senate includes important protections for patient safety and the clinical trial process.

Senate HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and ranking Democrat Patty Murray (D-Wash.) the same duo who are about to embark on bipartisan Obamacare stabilization" hearings played a role in helping Johnson work out a compromise. Alexander told POLITICO after the vote that Johnson tried to run it by everyone who was affected, including the pharmaceutical industry, trial lawyers and patients. Im very happy for him and the patients around the country who will benefit from it.

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), one of the few Democrats who had been in favor of it all along, said more liberal members all wanted to step up once the revised bill was explained to them.

FDA also worked behind the scenes to push for changes to make the bill safer for patients.

Not every senator endorses the libertarian rhetoric about getting federal regulators out of patients' way that propelled right-to-try a key theme of the message the Goldwater Institute took through the states and to Washington.

Theres no more fundamental freedom than the right to save your own life. Right to Try guarantees that freedom by ensuring that patients, along with their doctors, are in control of the treatments they receive when facing a terminal diagnosis, Goldwater's president and CEO Victor Riches said in a statement after passage.

But more liberal lawmakers faced significant lobbying, featuring heartbreaking stories of young children or newlyweds facing shortened lives. Meanwhile, the most powerful opposition, the drug industry and doctors groups, kept their disagreement very low-profile. Their soft voices gave lawmakers little political protection for a "no" vote.

Theres no doubt about it there are a lot of patients out there that think this is the answer to their prayers. They certainly believed that, and they pushed their members of Congress to support a bill that in many cases the members of Congress thought was not a good idea, said Zuckerman.

PhRMAs low-profile on right-to-try hurt detractors from the outset. The industry group never took a formal position on the state right-to-try laws or earlier federal proposals. But it consistently reiterated its concerns about any approach to experimental medicines that sought to bypass the FDA and the clinical trial process. Of the major drug makers, only Merck formally came out against the earlier Johnson bill.

Its huge, NYUs Bateman-House said of PhRMAs reluctance to take a stronger public stance. When I speak with legislators, they say, Well if its that bad, why isnt pharma speaking against it?

Critics of right-to-try concede the final Senate bill is much improved from earlier versions. It adds crucial safeguards that should help protect patients' safety and their pocketbooks, as they can no longer be charged excessive amounts for unproven drugs.

But the critics, including bioethicists, safety advocates and researchers, still worry about the risk of undermining an agency like the FDA an important safety regulator that has ensured that drugs are studied in controlled settings so FDA can make informed decisions to approve or disapprove them.

The bill looks to be an "improvement," said Patti Zettler, a professor at Georgia State University and former associate chief counsel at FDA. "However, the fundamental problem with the bill is not resolved in that it still envisions removing, or drastically reducing, FDA's role in expanded access."

And it may fall short an example of Congress checking a box, but not really solving a problem.

Its something where your reluctant representative can claim they are taking action but does not effectively address root problems, said Ameet Sarpatwari of Harvard Medical School. Weve seen this with rising drug prices, and now we see it with experimental treatment. It is a show, but it is also dangerous in the sense that it furthers this sort of attack on FDA as somehow being antithetical to the interest of patients.

Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified Patti Zettler's affiliation. She is a professor at Georgia State University.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See original here:

Libertarians score big victory in 'right-to-try' drug bill - Politico

Dennis Fusaro, a libertarian activist, and Steve Waters were found not guilty by a jury of their own peers for illegal free speech. The men had sent a robocall back in 2014 to 5,000 people in Anne Arundel County, Maryland on the weekend before an important election. The robocall congratulated Democratic County Council candidate Patrick Armstrong for his bravery in coming out of the closet after he supported a transgender bathroom mandate.

Transgenders can now openly and freely go into any bathroom of their choice based on their confused gender identity, the obviously satirical script for the robocall read. Tell Patrick to continue to stand loud and proud in support for transgenders equal rights. While our opponent argued that children could be at risk by sexual predators with this new law, we celebrate the rights of transgenders and what this does for equality for transgenders in Maryland.

Armstrongs Republican opponent, Michael Anthony Peroutka, employed Fusaro but denied any knowledge of the robocall. He won the election, but Fusaros tactics were deemed illegal by the state and he was brought up on charges.

The call in question failed to identify Fusaro and Waters as the persons responsible for the call, and failed to state whether it was authorized by any candidate, prosecutors said in a statement. Instead, the call falsely stated that it was Paid for and authorized by Marylanders for Transgenders.' Additionally, the men used burner phones for the robocall which was said to be an underhanded attempt to conceal their identity.

Fusaro and Waters were charged with violating and conspiring to violate the authority line requirements of Maryland election laws. Each charge carried up to one year in prison and a maximum fine of $5,000. Despite the facts of the case being rather clear, the jury made the decision to acquit both men. It is believed that the jury nullified the Draconian restrictions against political free speech on the books in the state of Maryland.

The Office of the Maryland Special Prosecutor decides which procedural mistakes are hammered and which are not. That gives them substative message control by using their procedural power, Fusaro said in a statement released to Target Liberty. Taxpayers in Maryland who are concerned with their first amendment rights should rise up and have that office shut down by petitioning their legislature for redress of grievances.

Fusaro, always the libertarian rabble-rouser, is best known for releasing embarrassing audio of former Ron Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton talking about holding his nose to support Sen. Mitch McConnell after joining his campaign. Because of the concept of jury nullification, Fusaro will be unabated in his activist work stirring up trouble for politicians.

Enjoyed the article? Make a contribution to support our work via Patreon!

Continue reading here:

Jury Nullification Used To Free Libertarian Activist In Maryland - The Liberty Conservative

Photo Credit: Peek Creative Collective / Shutterstock.com

The abandoned cop cars sat in Trina Reyes yard for eight months. She wanted them gone, but there were no police to come get them. Last September, the police department in Von Ormy a town of 1,300 people just southwest of San Antonio lost its accreditation after it failed to meet basic standards. Reyes was mayor at the time, so the three patrol cars, as well as the squads police radios and its computers, ended up at her home. It was just another low point in a two-year saga that she now counts as one of the most difficult experiences of her life.

This is one of the worst things Ive ever done, she said of being mayor. Ive never dealt with such angry people. Im washing my hands of everything. Im going to travel. Im going as far away from Von Ormy as I can.

For the last few years, Von Ormy has been in near-constant turmoil over basic issues of governance: what form of municipal government to adopt, whether to tax its residents, and how to pay for services such as sewer, police, firefighters and animal control. Along the way, three City Council members were arrested for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Act, and the volunteer fire department collapsed for lack of funds. Nearly everyone in town has an opinion on whos to blame. But its probably safe to say that the vision of the citys founder, a libertarian lawyer whose family traces its roots in Von Ormy back six generations, has curdled into something that is part comedy, part tragedy.

In 2006, fearing annexation by rapidly encroaching San Antonio, some in Von Ormy proposed incorporating as a town. But in government-averse rural Texas, incorporation can be a hard sell. Unincorporated areas are governed mainly by counties, which have few rules about what you can do on private property and tend to only lightly tax. Theres no going back from what municipal government brings: taxes, ordinances, elections and tedious city council meetings. Still, the fear of being absorbed by San Antonio with its big-city taxes and regulations was too much for most Von Ormians.

Enter Art Martinez de Vara. At the time, Martinez de Vara was an ambitious third-year law student at St. Marys University in San Antonio, a local boy with a penchant for Texas history and right-wing politics.

Martinez de Vara suggested a compromise of sorts. Von Ormy could become a liberty city a stripped-down, low-tax, low-government version of municipal government thats currently en vogue among the tea party in Texas.

Initially, the city would impose property and sales taxes, but the property tax would ratchet down to zero over time. The business-friendly environment would draw new economic activity to Von Ormy, and eventually the town would cruise along on sales taxes alone.

There would be no charge for building permits, which Martinez de Vara said would be hand-delivered by city staff. The nanny state would be kept at bay, too. Want to shoot off fireworks? Blast away. Want to smoke in a bar? Light up. Teens wandering around at night? No curfew, no problem.

Martinez de Vara and his mother, Sally Martinez, along with other prominent residents, started the Commission to Incorporate Von Ormy. He gave Von Ormy a motto: The Freest Little City in Texas.

Folks in Von Ormy liked what they heard and in May 2008 voted to incorporate. Martinez de Vara was elected mayor that November.

In a 2015 presentation he gave at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, Martinez de Vara said that a group of people with no political experience took it upon themselves to do everything a large city like San Antonio does but at a lower cost. He touted Von Ormys ability to provide animal control services, a 20-officer police department a mix of paid officers and volunteers and an online city hall.

We were blessed with this unique opportunity to experiment with democracy, he said.

Today, there is no city animal control program and stray dogs roam the streets. The Bexar County Sheriffs Office patrols the town instead of city police, and City Hall resides in a mobile home with one full-time staffer though thats a step up from the dive bar where City Council met until the owner bounced them out. If you go to the citys website, youll be informed that its still under construction.

If Von Ormy is a libertarian experiment with democracy, its one that hasnt turned out as expected.

The crisis of government in Von Ormy doesnt present itself at first glance. The town is located on I-35 just south of the Medina River, where San Antonios impressive sprawl gives way to the scrub brush of South Texas. Theres a post office, of course, plus some gas stations, a diner, a trailer home dealer and the MGM Cabaret strip club. A giant oak tree in town is believed by some local historians, including Martinez de Vara, to have been the encampment for Santa Anna before he laid siege to the Alamo.

Reyes lives near I-35 in a distinct two-story blue house. A retired buyer for a beauty supply company, she moved from San Antonio to Von Ormy in 1982. When Martinez de Vara stepped down as mayor in 2015, he tapped Reyes to run. She had been an early supporter of the liberty city idea. But when I visited her this spring, she was counting down the days till her term expired in May.

From the beginning, she said, the town had been divided.

Some really liked it, Reyes said. They liked the possibility of getting street lights, sewage, better roads and all of the stuff that comes with incorporating. There was quite a bit promised and people bought into it, including myself.

Others thought that the process would lead to unnecessary fights and power grabs.

A lot of people that did not want to incorporate were saying that once you become a political entity you start with the corruption, the infighting and all of the stuff that comes with having public figures, she said. They said it was going to divide the city, which it did. The majority of the people that spoke up against [incorporating] were right then about whats happening now.

As mayor, Martinez de Varas first priority was to lure chain stores with the towns low-tax, low-regulation branding. But there was a problem: Von Ormy lacked a sewer system and it would be expensive to connect to San Antonios main wastewater system. The San Antonio Water System, which services most of Bexar County, told town officials that the connection would cost $4 million to $5 million.

According to Reyes, City Administrator James Massey recommended floating a bond, standard practice for most cities. But Martinez de Vara rejected the recommendation. Liberty cities arent supposed to take on debt, after all. (Martinez de Vara didnt respond to numerous requests for comment.)

Reyes said most people in Von Ormy agreed with Martinez de Varas position but that it put the town in a bind. You want to be a liberty city? No taxes, she said. We could only afford to put in $500,000, if that, but where would we get the rest from? The sewer system was never installed, and the town still relies on septic.

The lack of a centralized wastewater system made it more difficult to recruit businesses. But the oil boom in the Eagle Ford Shale the vast shale play that stretches from Laredo into East Texas helped juice the businesses along the I-35 strip in Von Ormy. Martinez de Vara and the City Council stuck to the plan of ratcheting the property tax rate down every year. In 2009, the rate stood at a modest 39 cents per $100 of value less than neighboring San Antonio or Somerset, a small town to the south. By 2014, theyd cut it to 25.5 cents enough to generate $79,000 in revenue. Meanwhile, the sales tax brought in about $215,000 that year.

Martinez de Vara promised that the property tax would be eliminated altogether by 2015, the bold step hed envisioned at the towns inception.

Many of our residents are on fixed incomes and property taxation is the single greatest threat to continued home ownership and the ability to pass the fruits of a lifetime of work onto the next generation, he told theSan Antonio Express-Newsin 2014.

But two things happened around this time: First, the bottom fell out of the oil economy. With oil prices in free-fall in 2014 and 2015, the drilling rigs in the Eagle Ford Shale started packing up, as did many of the workers, trucks and ancillary oil field services.

Second, some were beginning to sour on the liberty city model. On the five-member City Council, three council members Jacqueline Goede, Verna Hernandez and Carmina Aguilar had banded together in a bloc that was increasingly at odds with Martinez de Vara and the two other council members, one of whom was Sally Martinez. The most explosive issue was property taxes. The three women thought it was foolish to eliminate property taxes altogether. Sales taxes rise and fall with the economy, and few cities rely on them alone.

As new as we are and as small as we are, to grow we need those taxes, Goede told theExpress-News. We need them desperately.

What ensued was a confusing series of boycotted meetings, obscure loopholes and eventually a possibly illegal hearing that landed the three women briefly in jail. In September 2014, Martinez de Vara had formally proposed zeroing out the property tax, but Goede, Hernandez and Aguilar voted it down 3-2 and, at least for five days, kept the property tax in place. However, to formally ratify the rate, per state law, at least four council members needed to hold another meeting to vote, but Sally Martinez and Debra Ivy refused to show up to any hearing with ratification on the agenda. The result: Martinez de Vara got his way and the property tax rate was eliminated.

Frustrated, Goede, Hernandez and Aguilar took a radical, and possibly illegal, step: They formed a kind of brief shadow government, holding their own City Council hearing at the Von Ormy fire station without Martinez de Vara and the two other council members. At the hearing, they elected Goede mayor pro tem, established a property tax and fired the head of the police department.

Martinez de Vara caught wind of the meeting and got a judge to nullify the actions taken in it. Soon, the Texas Rangers opened a criminal investigation into possible violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act, resulting in misdemeanor charges. In May 2015, the three council members turned themselves in to the Bexar County Sheriffs Office. Though the charges were eventually dropped and the women continued serving on City Council, the incident only inflamed tensions in the community.

After that, there was a lack of authority, lack of direction and a lack of enthusiasm, said Michael Suarez, the former animal control worker for the city and a Martinez de Vara supporter. Everyone started acting like children and nothing got done.

Even as Von Ormy descended into chaos, Martinez de Varas own profile had been rising. Folks from around the state had started calling him with questions about how to form a liberty city. Martinez de Vara found himself with a niche law practice. He says he has helped four or five Texas towns incorporate as liberty cities, about half the state total in the last decade.

The GOP had also taken notice. In 2011 and 2012, Martinez de Vara served as chief of staff to one-term Representative John Garza, a San Antonio Republican. Then, in 2014, Senator Konni Burton, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Fort Worth, brought him on as chief of staff. That session, Burton introduced Senate Bill 710, which would codify the liberty city model as an official form of municipal government, with restrictions on regulations, debt and the implementation of taxes. The bill died in committee.

Today, hes the assistant general counsel for the Texas Republican Party and the city attorney for Kingsbury, a liberty city near Seguin in Guadalupe County.

In May 2015, Martinez de Vara stepped down as mayor but not before asking Reyes, a member of the City Council first elected in 2013, to run as his replacement. She and Martinez de Vara agreed on the top priority: getting the three women off the council.

It got to the point that the city was spending $20,000 to $30,000 a month in legal fees, she said. All three of them would pick up the phone and ask the same question and wed get charged for all of them.

Despite pressing city business, council meetings often devolved into chaos. For example, at a September 2015 meeting, Reyes angrily told Goede and Hernandez they were speaking out of turn and threatened to call the police if they kept talking. But when Hernandez persisted, Reyes ordered the police chief, who was present at the meeting, to escort Hernandez outside. Hernandez was arrested and booked into jail for disrupting a meeting, a misdemeanor. But that didnt quiet Hernandez or her supporters.

One day, Reyes said, she got a call from Martinez de Vara.

He told me that the only way that we were going to get rid of those women is to change to a commissioner-style government, she said. And at that point, I would have done anything to get rid of those three women. They were nothing but trouble.

Martinez de Vara recommended that Von Ormy switch from whats known as a Type A municipality to a Type C. Instead of the usual five council members and a mayor, Type C cities have two commissioners and a mayor. According to the Texas Municipal League, only 27 of the 1,200 municipalities in Texas are set up this way. In November 2015, voters narrowly approved the change, with 129 in favor and 115 against. The new commission started holding meetings the next month.

When I visited Reyes in Von Ormy in March, she was in despair about the arrangement. Halving the council from six to three elected officials hadnt brought unity.

She had all but stopped speaking to the two commissioners longtime City Council member Sally Martinez and Alex Quintanilla, another stalwart in the city government. Reyes simply stopped showing up for council meetings in early 2017, accusing Martinez and Quintanilla of ganging up on her.

In September, Martinez and Quintanilla voted to reclassify the mayors office as a conference room and mandated that Reyes pay for the desks relocation. They said it was too big and that I had to take it home, she said. Now I work from home.

She was also worried about violating the Open Meetings Act again, which is easy to do when there are only three people in charge of the city and two constitutes a quorum.

If two of us talk on the phone, I think that would be a violation, she said. Weve just stopped speaking to each other. And Alex lives across the alley from me. Its really sad.

She points to a February meeting between county officials and rural leaders in southern Bexar County as evidence of the precariousness of their situation.

I went to a forum with the county to talk about potential Community Development Block Grant funds in nearby Somerset, and I didnt realize until I put my glasses on that Sally and Alex were there, she said. I thought, Oh my God, were in trouble again.

In September 2016, Von Ormy made headlines when its police department was forced to shut down. For nearly a year, Reyes and the two city commissioners had been locked in a power struggle over who should be the police chief. When Reyes took over as mayor, she moved to sack Police Chief Greg Reyes (no relation), who she and others accused of harassing council members and city staff and lying about his law enforcement background. (According to a report written by a private investigator tapped by Mayor Reyes, the police chief had lied on his rsum about obtaining a degree from San Antonio College and being assigned to the Frio County Sheriffs Department Narcotics Task Force, which turned out not to exist.)

Mayor Reyes fired Chief Reyes and convinced the City Council to hire a man named Pedro Rosario. The new police chief claimed to find some serious problems left behind by his predecessor.

The evidence room had very little to no control measures, he told me in an April interview. It was literally an 18-wheel trailer that was unsecured. There was no cataloging. I found unmarked boxes filled with everything from weapons to narcotics and anybody could walk in, and they did. A lot of the City Council members would just walk in and want to see a file or just grab things. (Greg Reyes did not respond to numerous requests for comment.)

Then in the summer of 2016, the two commissioners, Martinez and Quintanilla, voted to fire Rosario and rehire Greg Reyes. But Mayor Reyes claimed the hiring was illegal and refused to recognize Reyes as police chief.

Then in September, the dispute was finally brought to an end when Bexar County Sheriff Susan Pamerleau wrote a letter to Mayor Reyes. Pamerleau said her department would no longer provide dispatch services because there was simply too much instability in the department. Without dispatch services, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement quickly pulled the Von Ormy PDs accreditation.

The Bexar County Sheriffs Office has been patrolling the town ever since. The three patrol cars Von Ormy had received as a donation from Bexar County ended up in Reyes yard. After her term ended in May, they were moved in front of City Hall.

Jake Galvan, a retired mechanic, says that the police department was an embarrassment to the town and the source of rumors about misconduct and other illegal behavior.

They didnt hire anybody thats a veteran, he said. They just hired a bunch of rookies with no experience.

In Galvans view, the liberty city experiment has gone all wrong.

This aint going well at all, he said. Weve got a bunch of empty buildings, a lot of [federal] grant money spent, and for what? We have a fire station that nobody wants to operate and a police station with no police. Where did all that money go?

In early May, Von Ormy elected a new mayor: Sally Martinez, the only person who has served on the council since the beginning.

We are in the process of trying to bring back our police department, she told me in a brief April interview. We just want to move forward and improve the city however we can.

David Farr, her challenger, is a mechanic who had started to attend meetings over the past year and wanted to change what he saw as stalled progress and nepotism.

The only way to make Von Ormy sustainable is to get more businesses out here, he said.

If things dont change, were going to be in trouble in, Id say, two years. Well have to start borrowing to get the roads fixed.

He pins the towns woes on Martinez de Varas crusade to establish other liberty cities, a common complaint heard in Von Ormy.

Ill give him credit, hes the one who got the city going, he said. But then, all of a sudden, he drops out. Hes up in Austin. Hes too busy.

Reyes thinks the liberty city experiment has failed. With increasing expenses, a population resistant to any taxes, and economic development dead in the water, she thinks the town is only a few years away from a fiscal crisis, when the commission will have to decide whether to take on debt.

Were halfway there, she said. Without ad valorem taxes, well be done in three to five years. If we cant attract more businesses here and provide the infrastructure, then I think were done.

But others are protective of Martinez de Varas vision and blame Reyes for the dysfunction.

Michael Suarez, the former animal control worker, was born and raised in Von Ormy. He says that Martinez de Vara was a capable leader who simply saw an opportunity to climb the political ladder.

Trina just wanted the power, but she didnt know anything, Suarez said. All she wanted to do was just scream about how shes in charge and order people around. She would scream at people, and thats not how you do things.

Suarez was one of the biggest supporters of incorporation, spending his free time block-walking to convince his neighbors that it was the right thing to do.

His wife, Amy, was on the City Council from 2011 to 2013 and was an ally of Martinez de Varas.

I think were just young, she said. Weve reached our temper tantrum stage and we just need to get past it. But a lot of the people here dont care. They want to be left alone, but if somethings not done soon then San Antonios going to annex us. Then well have to pay the taxes that Von Ormy was established to get out of in the first place.

Michael says that the election was an opportunity for things to settle down and live up to the trust given to them by county officials, but that there will be some hard work in getting the town they want back.

We worked so hard to get this far, he said. But its kind of turned into George Orwells Animal Farm. Were all equal, but some of us are more equal than others. Theres nobody competent enough to lead this city and we sure as hell cant attract anybody to come and fix us. We have to do this ourselves.

This article originally appeared on the Texas Observer.

James McCandless is a freelance writer in San Antonio.

Read more:

Inside the Total Catastrophe That Ensued After an Elected Libertarian Mayor Promised the 'Freest Little City in Texas' - AlterNet