Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson responded to a question on whether he will run for president in 2024 in a Thursday interview.

Semafor co-founder and editor-in-chief Ben Smith questioned Carlson on his ambitions to launch a presidential run during an interview hosted by the Knight Foundation and Semafor News.

Im curious about your ambitions, Smith said. There are friends of yours, to the extent youve still got them in Washington, who are talking about your running for president in 2024 and Im curious what your thought process is around that.

I have zero ambition, not just politically, but in life, Carlson said. My ambition is to write my script by 8 p.m. And Im not just saying that, as anyone who works with me or knows me, I dont think that way. I dont want power. Ive never wanted power. Im annoyed by things, I want them to change, but Ive never been motivated by the desire to control people.

Carlson described his instincts as libertarian, though he does not associate himself with the Libertarian Party.

So, thats a youre not running?' Smith pressed.

Im not running, I mean come on, Carlson replied. Im a talk show host, and I enjoy my job, by the way. And what a blessing it is to say what you really think like, only women can get pregnant. I dare you to say that. Can you say that? No, you cant say that. I can. (RELATED: Tucker 2024? Heres Where Carlson Stacks Up Against The Competition)

Smith asked Carlson about his concerns with the political civil conflict arising throughout the country and whether he has the ability to faith in institutions. The host said he can by telling the truth, correcting his mistakes and urged the country needs to de-racialize the nation.

Yes, Im trying my very hardest to tell the truth, and when I screw it up, I correct it immediately if its a factual error. When my views on things change, I say so, I dont pretend I didnt used to think that, he said. I admit it.

The scariest thing that could happen to America is to wind up in a country that cleaves along racial lines, he continued later. Identity politics is the route there so the most important thing we can do and we should do people who have an audience is to de-racialize the conversation. The Democratic Party is like, Its white people, white men versus everybody else. I hate that. Thats not true.

Smith claimed Carlsons audience enjoys when he pours gasoline on those fires, asking if ratings had any involvement in his reaction to these issues. The Daily Caller co-founder said he does not read ratings charts and doesnt know what his shows ratings are.

Read more:

Tucker Responds To Question On Whether He Will Run For President - Daily Caller

Described by Rolling Stone as the point man for drug policy reform efforts and the real drug czar, Ethan Nadelmann is widely regarded as the outstanding proponent of drug policy reform both in the United States and abroad. After receiving his PhD in Political Science from Harvard University, Ethan went on to teach at Princeton University from 1987 to 1994. He went on to found and direct The Lindesmith Center (1994-2000) and the Drug Policy Alliance (2000-2017), during which time he and his colleagues were at the forefront of dozens of successful campaigns to legalize marijuana and advance other alternatives to the war on drugs. His 2014 TED Talk on ending the drug war has over two million views, with translations into 28 languages. Ethan currently hosts the leading podcast on all things drugs: PSYCHOACTIVE.

Elise Curtin and Alex Fasseas: In a recent episode on your podcast PSYCHOACTIVE, you discussed cannabis reform with House Republican Nancy Mace. Despite Maces pro-legalization stance, Republican support remains scarce. First, why is it that legalization is a partisan issue? And second, what in your opinion is the best argument to convince someone with conservative views to support legalization?

Ethan Nadelmann: On the one hand, theres always been a partisan divide between the Democrats and the Republicans on legalizing marijuana, which in large part had to do with marijuanas association with rebellion and cultural opposition in the 1960-70s. So you always had that divide. On the other hand, among my most passionate allies were the Republicans with a libertarian leaninggranted most of the base of my support was still on the left. For instance, when former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson became one of the first governors to boldly step out in favor of marijuana legalization, he became my great ally on the issue.

Another one of my allies, believe it or not, was Grover Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform. His famous line was, I want to make government so small, you can strangle it in a bathtub. So this is a guy who I politically disagree with on the large majority of issues, and yet hes my close ally on drug policy reform. He arranged for me to speak in plenary sessions at multiple Conservative Political Action Conferences (CPACs), where I would always debate someone from the right-wing. And there would always be people in the audience yelling things like, Get him off the stage! or He works for Soros! But by the end of the debate, I would always receive more applause, because all the young conservatives showing up to CPACs were sympathetic to legalizing marijuana, and even some of the older, more libertarian-minded folks were, too.

Over the last decade or so weve started to see a majority of young Republicans and representatives like Nancy Mace come out in favor of marijuana legalization. When you look at red and purple statesSouth Dakota, Montana, Arizonavoting for marijuana legalization, youre seeing the divide between the Democrats and the Republicans become less substantial. Another example is support for legalizing medical marijuana, which used to be overwhelmingly Democrat with only a handful of Republicans. And then as Democrat support grew from 60 percent to 90 percent, Republican support blossomed to about 60 percent in the last few years.

In terms of convincing Republicans, I think it really comes down to two arguments: decreasing police overreach and potential tax revenue. More specifically, wed rather have the cops focusing on real crime instead of busting young people for weed. And second, wed rather have the government taxing and regulating marajuana instead of letting the gangsters make all the money. In almost every state, these poll-tested messages have appealed to both Democrat and Republican swing voters.

EC & AF: What are some often-overlooked positive or negative externalities that accompany the legalization of marajuana? For instance, how might it function as a substitute for other psychoactive substances?

EN: There are two interesting areas of study that look at substitutability with marijuana. One is vis--vis alcohol; some studies show that legalization results in a reduction in alcohol usehow significant it is is hard to say. The second area is with opioids; there are now at least 10 studies that suggest that the first few states that legalized medical marijuana have had lower rates of opioid overdose fatalities. That is likely due to two factors: first, people experiment with substituting cannabis for opioids in order to deal with certain types of pain. The other factor has to do with the fact that cannabis is an enhancer, so patients can take a lower dose of opioids when combined with cannabis and still get the same pain relief effect.

In terms of negative externalities, one of the principal arguments used against marijuana legalization is that it can lead to an increase in use among adolescents. But what critics fail to account for is the fact that adolescents are the ones who already have the best access to marijuana. So even when we started legalizing the stuff, adolescent use did not go up. In fact, some places even saw a decrease in adolescent and college-age users.

Where use did go up was among people between their 40s and their 90s; theres been a fourfold increase in my generations use of cannabis over the last 10 years, and its because people are substituting it out for alcohol, prescription drugs, sleeping pills, etc. I know a lot of couples who have been in a monogamous relationship for 20, 30, 40 years where cannabis plays a central role in their ongoing sexual relationship. It can act not so much as a Viagra, but as a way for people to stay connected, to shift their context. So I think thats where weve seen some real positive susceptibility.

Obviously, the advocatesmyself includedwant to emphasize the upsides and the safety of marijuana, but I always felt that our credibility was greatest when we acknowledged right at the outset that cannabis is a psychoactive drug that can be harmful to people. On the other hand, one could point to the fact that for many people, the worst thing that ever happened to them from their marijuana use was getting busted for it. The governmentspecifically the National Institute on Drug Abusespends billions of dollars to show the negative harms of marijuana, but they never spend the money to show the negative harms of being arrested and incarcerated, even for just a few days, for possession.

EC & AF: What do you consider to be the most significant political accomplishment of your career thus far?

EN: I think the most obvious success was ending marijuana prohibition. I was speaking and publishing in both left- and right-wing policy journals about why we needed to legalize marijuana more than 20 years ago. I took a lot of pride in building a broader drug policy reform movement, in weaving together disparate strands of peoplefrom conservatives, to psychedelics users, to sobriety advocates, to law enforcers, to ex-inmates.

My role on marijuana legalization started off with spearheading the first California medical marijuana initiative in 1996, and then taking it to Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada and Maine from 1998 to 2000. That arc from the early 90s through 2016 for me was, I think, the greatest and most conspicuous success. From there I helped build out the movement, pushing ballot initiatives to reduce arrests and incarceration, which, as a result, have allowed over 100,000 people to stay out of prison or serve shorter sentences. Additionally, back in 2000, we organized the first international conference on preventing overdose fatalities, making naloxone more readily available and passing 911 Good Samaritan laws, which allow drug users to access emergency services without fear of arrest.

EC & AF: Looking to the future, what upcoming or current project are you most enthusiastic about?

EN: The issue that has really galvanized me in the last few years since I stopped running the Drug Policy Alliance have been the debates surrounding e-cigarettes and harm reduction. Evidence shows that if you take an adult smoker whos addicted to cigarettes and has been unable to quit, and transition them over to e-cigarettes, you cut the risk to their health by roughly 95 percent. And thats because most of the harm of tobacco comes not from the nicotine, but from the burnt particle matter and the carcinogenic tars which can lead to heart and lung disease, and eventually death.

On the other hand, nicotine consumed in an e-cigarette has relatively little harm to your health. You can be on nicotine for the rest of your life, and maybe theres a cardiovascular risk as you get older, but overall its not that dangerous as a substance. What that means is that if all 40 million Americans who are currently addicted to cigarettes switched to e-cigarettes, it would represent one of the greatest advances in public health in American history. Ultimately, however, the reason we cant have tobacco harm reduction is because most people and policymakers view it as a big child protection act.

So this is the issue on which Ive become most animated. And I think theres a possibility that a generation from now, the war on drugs is not going to be about marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. Its going to be about tobacco.

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Read this article:

The Politics of Marajuana and the War on Drugs: An Interview with Ethan Nadelmann - Brown Political Review

Editor's Note: this article is a part ofGoverning's Inside Politics newsletter.Sign up here.

Democrats Are Playing With Fire: Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has a healthy seven-point lead, according to the first poll of his re-election race taken following last weeks primary. He should be pretty happy with the result. After all, he helped pick his own opponent.

Pritzker and the Democratic Governors Association spent in the neighborhood of $30 million boosting the chances of state Sen. Darren Bailey in the GOP primary. Pritzker believes that Bailey, who secured the endorsement of former President Donald Trump just ahead of the primary, is an extremist who will be soundly rejected by Illinois voters.

Perhaps the most famous recent example of this came in 2012. Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill spent more money during the last couple of weeks of the GOP primary season than her preferred opponent, U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, spent on his entire campaign to that point. Akins track record made him my ideal opponent, McCaskill later wrote. I had successfully manipulated the Republican primary so that in the general election I would face the candidate I was most likely to beat.

McCaskill got lucky. It was only after he became the nominee that Akin made the ultimately disqualifying comment that it wasnt necessary to allow abortions for rape victims because if its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. McCaskill said she would have felt terrible if Todd Akin had become a United States senator, but rationalized her ploy by arguing his primary opponents would have ended up voting the same way once in office.

Thats the real risk Democrats are taking this year. By encouraging voters to pick candidates they believe are the most outside the mainstream, they increase the odds more offices will be held by the type of Republicans they hate the most. This is shaping up to be a strongly Republican year, so Democrats could be ushering their own worst future enemies into power.

On the other hand, Democrats may prevail in a few races by propping up future failures on the other side. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, the Democratic nominee for governor, helped promote the candidacy of state Sen. Doug Mastriano, a Trumpist election denier, in the GOP primary. On Wednesday, Shapiro got to announce the endorsements of 10 Republicans who are backing him over Mastriano, including two former members of Congress, a former lieutenant governor and a former state House speaker. Another group of Republicans have formed a super PAC to support Shapiro, calling Mastriano extreme and unacceptable.

In response to the Democratic Governors Association boosting Trump-endorsed state Rep. Dan Cox over state Commerce Secretary Kelly Schulz his own preferred candidate Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan recently tweeted, The whack job being propped up by the DGA would ensure that our state goes back to a Democratic monopoly.

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (TNS)

President Joe Biden is a genuinely good man, but he has yet been unable to break through our national malady of denial, deceit, and distrust, Romney wrote in The Atlantic. A return of Donald Trump would feed the sickness, probably rendering it incurable.

The danger, Romney warns, could be cataclysmic. Complacency and wishful thinking are putting the country and its political traditions at risk. When entire countries fail to confront serious challenges, it doesnt end well, he wrote.

Granted, Romney is the only Republican senator who voted to convict Trump at the end of both his impeachment trials. But Romney was also the Republican Partys last presidential nominee before Trump. That the 2012 standard-bearer falls so far outside the mainstream of his own party shows how much that party has changed over the past decade.

Abortion Will Be on the Ballot: Given the Supreme Courts recent ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, abortion has emerged as one of the top political issues of the year. It remains to be seen whether Democrats get their wish that it motivates their voters and turns independents against Republican candidates. Only 5 percent of voters named abortion as their top concern in a Monmouth University poll released Tuesday, far fewer than inflation, gas prices and other economic issues.

But abortion will be an issue that voters will decide directly in at least five states this year. Kansas and Kentucky voters could approve state constitutional amendments that would block abortion rights a question that will have real consequences in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia have approved similar amendments in recent years. In November, Montana voters will decide on a measure that would create criminal penalties when infants born alive are denied medical care.

Conversely, Vermont voters will decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. Last week, Californias Legislature also put an abortion rights amendment on the November ballot. And it looks like Michigan voters will consider a similar measure.

Theres a 1931 law on the books in Michigan that bans abortion, except to save the life of the mother, but a state court in May blocked its enforcement. Supporters for an abortion rights amendment say theyve collected nearly 800,000 signatures nearly double the 425,059 needed to qualify for the ballot.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul will face no minor party challengers this fall. (TNS)

For decades, New Yorks ballots have been filled with candidates from numerous minor parties Liberal, Conservative, Working Families, Libertarian and so on. Often, major-party candidates have run as the nominee of two or more parties, but generally theyve found it annoying having to compete against larger-than-average fields.

In 2020, the Legislature raised the threshold for minor parties to qualify for the ballot. Previously, their candidates only had to receive 50,000 votes every four years. Now, they have to receive 130,000 votes, or 2 percent of the total, every two years, in both presidential and gubernatorial elections. Last week, the state board of elections rejected applications from seven different parties seeking to qualify for this years election for governor.

A federal court will hear a challenge from the Green and Libertarian parties later this month. But right now, it looks like New Yorkers this fall will only be choosing between two parties for governor for the first time since 1946.

Read the original:

Democrats Are Playing With Fire - Governing

On 9 August 2022, Kenyans will vote for their fifth president. It will be the countrys seventh general election since the resumption of multiparty electoral democracy 30 years ago.

This year will see the lowest number of presidential candidates on the ballot since 1992. The countrys Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission has cleared four contenders. They are Deputy President William Ruto of the Kenya Kwanza coalition, former prime minister Raila Odinga of the Azimio la Umoja coalition, law professor George Wajackoyah of the Roots Party and lawyer David Waihiga of the Agano Party.

While Ruto and Odinga are the frontrunners, Wajackoyah and Waihiga are fringe presidential aspirants. Generally, fringe candidates are aspirants whose chances of passing a frontrunner are slim to none.

They play a significant role, however, in testing democratic spaces for maturity. They also accrue personal benefits, such as grooming for future political careers.

A look at fringe candidacy in established democracies shows that marginal aspirants are more significant than we might think. In the United States, for example, the 2020 elections had Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian Party) and Howie Hawkins (Green Party) as fringe candidates. The 2016 elections had four such contenders: Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), Evan McMullin (Independent) and Darrell Castle (Constitution Party).

While Kenyas 2022 general election will have just two fringe candidates, previous elections have had between three (in 2002) and 13 (in 1997).

Read more: Money, influence and heroism: the allure of political power in Kenya

Kenyas 2010 constitution changed the outcome for presidential candidates after an election. Under the old constitution, the president had to be a member of parliament. This meant presidential candidates also vied for a parliamentary seat, raising their chances of being in government even if they failed to clinch the top seat.

The 2010 constitution changed this requirement. Presidential candidates cannot vie for any other seat, drastically reducing their political options should they not get elected.

Despite this change, fringe candidates continue to throw their hats in the ring. This means there are other motivations.

Read more: Odinga is running his fifth presidential race. Why the outcome means so much for Kenya

Fringe candidates serve four main functions. First, their presence in an election offers proof of a stable or steadying democracy. Political systems, institutions and politicians learn to accommodate alternative candidates as equal players with the right to contest elections.

Second, fringe candidates give the media a break from horserace journalism. This is the kind of reporting that focuses on powerful, influential and popular political players.

Third, fringe candidacy can serve as a political nursery for politicians. They gain name recognition from media coverage of presidential aspirants, and showcase their political ambitions through campaigns, interviews and debates. This builds their political profile.

They also go down in history as having contested the presidency, regardless of their performance in the elections.

For presidential candidate Wajackoyah, a peculiar manifesto that includes popularising marijuana and snake farming to offset Kenyas public debt seems to be working for him. His campaign speeches are often a trending social media topic in Kenya and his manifesto launch got prime news coverage.

There was similar excitement among voters in 2013 and 2017 when Mohammed Abduba Dida appeared in presidential debates with unusual ideas on how to better govern Kenya.

Fringe candidates often atypical ideologies and beliefs give democracies a break from regular political themes.

Fourth, fringe candidates can front a third force that unseats a powerful regime. This played out in Kenyas 2002 elections when fringe candidates from the 1992 and 1997 polls formed a coalition that nominated Mwai Kibaki as their flagbearer. He won the election against Daniel Mois preferred successor, Uhuru Kenyatta who is Kenyas current president.

There are aspirants who hope to one day replicate the luck Kibaki and Kenyatta had, and are happy enough to seek the presidency as fringe candidates.

Read more: William Ruto, the presidential candidate taking on Kenya's political dynasties

Waihigas presidential campaign seeks to infuse a moralist voice into Kenyan politics. He has hit out at Wajackoyahs plan to legalise marijuana and accused him of insulting church leaders. He is running a campaign that revolves around easing taxes, lowering the prices of basic foods and bringing back to Kenya money illegally obtained and stashed abroad.

Not all fringe candidates play a positive role in elections. Some have been accused of using their candidacy to split votes and give a frontrunner the advantage. This can be viewed as a well-orchestrated political move.

For instance, in 2007, former vice-president Kalonzo Musyokas bid for the presidency split the 2.4 million votes in the countrys eastern region. At the time, Kenya had just over 14 million registered voters. The eastern region is a significant constituency in elections and has traditionally supported Odingas presidential candidacy.

When Musyoka set out on his own, he ended up with 8.91% of the total votes cast. Odinga obtained 44.07% of the votes against a victorious Kibakis 46.42%. Had Odinga and Kalonzo remained united, the presidential poll results might have been different.

Another former vice-president, Musalia Mudavadi, fell out with Odinga in 2013 and decided to launch his own campaign. Mudavadis presidential candidacy split the votes in the western region which includes vote-rich counties like Vihiga, Kakamega and Bungoma.

Western Kenya is Mudavadis ethnic base and has often supported Odinga. In the 2013 election, however, Kenyatta won with 50.51% of the votes against Odingas 43.7%. Mudavadi came in third with just under 4% of the vote.

In developed and developing democracies, fringe candidates have a constitutional right to contest. Since their presence can often be a sign of a maturing democracy, the media and allied cultural institutions need to give them attention.

Additionally, its possible that those who vote for these candidates might not have exercised their right of suffrage had they not had the option on the ballot. For this reason, fringe contenders can help entrench a culture of voting and counteract voter apathy.

Follow this link:

Kenyas fringe presidential candidates: what they offer in elections - The Conversation

Two years ago, the Green Party didnt receive 2% in either the North Carolina presidential or governors race. That meant it lost a place on the ballot.

To get back on in 2022, the Greens needed 13,865 signatures of registered voters. The party said it collected 22,500 and that local county elections boards verified 15,953 of them.

But when the North Carolina Board of Elections met last week, executive director Karen Brinson Bell said there were problems.

There are numerous pages with obvious signs of fraud or irregularities, she said. These include the same hand-writing throughout and similar signatures.

She said the problems with the signatures might not raise a question but when you look at these cumulatively, we feel like there is a cloud over how many signatures are valid.

The elections board later voted 3-2 along party lines not to certify the Green Party petition, likely keeping it from the 2022 ballot. The decision could boost Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Cheri Beasley by giving progressive voters fewer choices in November.

But the boards decision touched off accusations from the Green Party that national Democrats were undermining their efforts. A prominent Democratic law firm The Elias Law Group said the Green Party misled voters when getting them to sign their petition.

Mathew Hoh, the Greens North Carolina U.S. Senate candidate, acknowledged there were small problems with the more than 22,000 signatures submitted. He said 95% were collected by Green Party volunteers.

But 5% were gathered by contractors, he said. And two of those people seemed to have tried to run a scam and submit false signatures. That was around 200 signatures (in question).

He said leading up to Thursdays hearing, he said the state hadnt given the party any indication that there was a larger concern.

And none of it as far as we were told amounted to systemic fraud that we were up not to no good, Hoh said. This is going to happen when you collect signatures. Someone will write Mickey Mouse and think its funny.

He added: This idea that because there was this fraud, there could be more. And because there could be more, there needs to be more investigation.

Hoh said he believes the Green Party is the victim of an effort by national Democrats to have their signatures rejected.

The Elias Law Group represented Michael Abucewicz of Raleigh, who has worked as a deputy get-out-the-vote director for the North Carolina Democratic Party.

He and the Elias Law Group sent the Board of Elections a letter stating that people leading the signature drive for the Greens worked to hide the partys ideology and misled people who signed. North Carolina law says that parties must inform people who sign of the general purpose and intent of their party.

But Hoh it was Democrats who were misleading people.

About two weeks ago we started hearing from folk who signed the petition saying hey someone just contacted me asking to take my name off the petition, he said.

Hoh released a recording of a phone call between Tony Ndedge, who is the co-chair of the states Green Party, with someone who tried to get them to take their name off the petition. The caller said they were a member of the Green Party.

On the recording, Ndedge asks the caller if he is representing the Green Party. The caller said yes.

The caller then asks if Ndedge signed a petition to have the Green Party on the ballot. He said yes.

The caller then appeared to read from a script, saying the Green Partys presence on the ballot will take votes away from Democrats giving Republicans a huge advantage. That will help them win North Carolina in 2022 and 2024. Are you interested in having your name removed from the petition?

Ndedge then said: Im confused. So, if you are with the Green Party, why are you asking me to remove it?

Then the phone call ended.

Abucewicz and an attorney with the Elias Law Group did not return phone calls or e-mails from WFAE.

Hoh said the Democrats went too far.

It would be one thing if their argument was we are checking the integrity of the petitions, he said. But as soon as you confirm that you signed the petition, then there was a message and on the calls, there was a script how the Green Party helps Republicans.

Many Democrats blame Green Party candidates Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016 for siphoning votes from Democratic presidential candidates. And for Republicans, Libertarian Gary Johnson received 3.3 percent of the vote in 2016and may have taken votes from Donald Trump.

And there is a LibertarianShannon Brayon this years U.S. Senate ballot.

The Board of Elections' three Democratic members voted not to certify the Greens. The two Republicans voted yes.

Board of Elections member Tommy Tucker, a Republican, said national Democrats were undermining North Carolina voters.

So there must be something advantageous for the Democrat Party not having the green party on the ballot, Tucker said. Thats my observation.

During the meeting last week, an attorney for the Green Party, Oliver Hall, protested the boards decision.

Is there any question as to the validity of the 15,953 signatures that have been validated by state and county boards? he asked.

The board chair, Damon Circosta, a Democrat, responded, saying that he had questions, sufficient in number, to be not willing to vote for certification today.

Hall pushed back.

The presumption ought to be that validated signatures are valid, he said. So again the question is: Is there any basis for considering or questioning the validity of any of those 15,000 signatures?

Hall then raised his voice at Circosta, saying Mr. Chairman, you have not answered the question.

Circosta said that Hall was out of order and told staff on the virtual meeting to mute Mr. Hall.

Elias Law Group's and the Green Party's letters to North Carolina BOE:

Read more:

NC Green Party rejection sparks claims of unfair undermining by national Democrats - WFAE

Good morning everybody,

Today is the 5th of July, and this is The Tuesday Pillar Post.

Todays the feast of St. Zoe of Rome, a third-century noblewoman whose husband maintained the Roman jail in which was imprisoned St. Sebastian, a prophet who would become a martyr.

Zoe couldnt speak; she apparently suffered an illness that left her unable to talk for more than six years until Sebastian, the holy prisoner overseen by her husband, prayed over her.

After Sebastians blessing, Zoe began to speak and soon found herself praising Sebastians God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Zoe and her husband were converted, baptized, and - for that - Zoe was soon martyred. She was apparently suffocated by smoke in 286, after she was suspended over a fire pit amid the Christian persecution of Diocletian.

May the Lord give us healing, may he open our lips, and may we praise God no matter the cost.

St. Zoe of Rome, pray for us.

Share

Heres whats happening in the world:

Pope Francis on Monday appointed Bishop Kenneth Nowakowski, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Bishop of London, to become apostolic visitor for the Ukrainian Greek Catholics in Ireland.

Why? Well, because nearly 40,000 Ukrainian refugees have arrived in the Emerald Isle in recent months war-weary and often in poverty and the sole Ukrainian Catholic parish in Dublin faces a daunting task to provide pastoral care for them.

Nowakowski told The Pillar yesterday that hell look into the prospect of establishing new Ukrainian Greek Catholic missions in Ireland, while he takes care of his growing flock at home more than 65,000 Ukrainian refugees have already arrived in the U.K., where the bishop already exercises pastoral care.

I think the Church always has to be seen as a lighthouse, where those beacons of hope are there, and that its not just an electronically manned lighthouse, but theres actually a human being there able to provide a compassionate ear, prayers, and the ability for people to know that God loves them, the bishop told The Pillar.

The big thing - and I emphasize that time and again - is to keep us in prayer, to remember Ukraine, dont let it slip off the horizon because its become, perhaps, old news. Its very important, he said.

Leave a comment

Albanys Bishop Edward Scharfenberger on Friday proposed a plan to settle outside the courtroom more than 400 claims of sexual abuse in his New York diocese.

The bishop told The Pillar that mediated settlements would ensure more fair compensations for abuse victims, and help the diocese avoid filing for bankruptcy.

Albany is the not only diocese to propose mediation with victims; some dioceses have established large victims compensation funds administered by third parties.

But Scharfenberger talked openly last week about the real challenge of providing monetary compensation to victims in a diocese with a declining population and limited cash:

The thing, I think, that's not been understood is that there is a limited amount of money, the bishop told The Pillar.

I dont want any hidden corners whereby we say we've got this pot over there saving for a rainy dayIll throw everything out there, but the thing is, the pot is limited.

Scharfenberger said he believes mediation would provide settlements for a higher number of victims than would litigation. He said he thinks thats just. But the bishop said he knows victims will find it difficult to trust him:

I understand that my efforts are naturally difficult to trust. It will be hard for many to believe that I am acting or speaking from my heart, or that what I do or say is credible, he told The Pillar.

Its not yet clear that the attorney leading lawsuits against the Albany diocese has actually brought the offer to his clients - or whether he intends to.

But Scharfenberger spoke strongly for serious ecclesial accountability during the 2018 McCarrick scandals he was a leader among bishops pushing for serious reforms - and transparency. And as the Church continues to address a just resolution to clerical sexual abuse, one victims advocate told The Pillar that Scharfenbergers views are worth discussion.

Read all about it.

You can't buy fireworks

for just 5 bucks a month

But you can make 'The Pillar' happen!

We're cooler than a box of sparklers

The Catholic Church in Liechtenstein is going through a moment of serious upheaval the tiny countrys archbishop has declined to participate in the synod on synodality, and is under fire for his handling of a priest accused of sexual assault. And Liechtensteins Church leaders have had some tangles with both prince and parliament in the small country.

With all that going on, its possible that the archdiocese in Liechtenstein might well be eventually folded back into the Swiss diocese from which it was carved. Its an unusual situation but one from which the entire Church can draw some lessons.

Luke Coppen reports on Big Trouble in Little Liechtenstein.

Share The Pillar

And while hes spending time on small European countries, Luke brings you this profile of Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, one of Europes most influential Churchmen.

You might remember Hollerich from some controversial comments he made a few months ago, which called into question the Churchs doctrine on homosexuality. But you might not know that the cardinal plays a very big role in the universal synod on synodality and in the confederation of European bishops conferences.

Hollerich has a lot of influence over the direction of the Church in much of Europe. So if you want to understand how the business of the Church gets done in Europe and who will be influential in guiding the shape of a future conclave the cardinal is worth reading about.

Check it out.

Give a gift subscription

Heres some more news that might be of interest:

Cardinal Blase Cupich said yesterday that gun violence is a life issue, after 6 people were killed in an Illinois suburb, and nearly two dozen more were treated in hospitals, most for gunshot wounds. They were shot during a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, just north of Chicago.

Whatever one makes of the right to bear arms, there is plenty of room for prudential judgment in interpreting the Second Amendment so as to enact serious, broadly popular gun-safety measures. The Senate finally passed a significant, yet modest, gun-safety bill last month. But clearly more must be done, the cardinal said in a statement.

The right to bear arms does not eclipse the right to life, or the right of all Americans to go about their lives free of the fear that they might be shredded by bullets at any moment.

May the Lord of mercy embrace in love those who have died, bring healing to the wounded, comfort to their loved ones, and courage to all of us, so that we may respond to this tragedy united as Gods children to build a path to safety and peace.

Pope Francis sent a telegram Tuesday morning to Cardinal Cupich, conveying prayers that Almighty God will grant eternal rest to the dead and healing and consolation to the injured and bereaved with unwavering faith that the grace of God is able to convert even the hardest of hearts, making it possible to depart from evil and do good.

For more on what the Church has to say about guns, read my May interview with Bishop Dan Flores, who talked with The Pillar after the Uvalda school shooting about guns, public discourse, and a crisis of hope.

Brazilian Cardinal Cludio Hummes, who encouraged the pope to take the name Francis, has died at the age of 87.

Police in Nigeria have rescued a kidnapped Italian priest, while two other priests were abducted in Nigeria on Saturday.

Myanmars military is reportedly continuing to target churches.

Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes has expressed deep regret after Nicaraguas government ordered the closure of Mother Teresas Missionaries of Charity apostolates in the country. (Spanish report).

Chinese Bishop Paul Lei Shiyin has celebrated the birth of Chinas Communist Party in Leshan cathedral.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx has said that the time is ripe for women deacons (German report).

Share

Much will be made in the news this week about a long interview Pope Francis gave this month to Reuters Vatican correspondent.

The interview covers a lot of ground, but doesnt offer much new: The pontiff told Reuters that he has no plans to resign, denied rumors he has cancer, and said he hopes the Vaticans deal with China will be renewed in October.

The pope was asked about the prospect of denying pro-abortion Catholic politicians the Eucharist.

When the Church loses its pastoral nature, when a bishop loses his pastoral nature, it causes a political problem, Francis said. That's all I can say.

That comment will be taken in the press mostly as a rebuke of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileones decision to deny Rep. Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Perhaps it was intended that way although the pontiff, in Francis fashion, could be understood differently, since last year he talked about the importance of pastoral ministry before, during, and after a denial of Holy Communion, while affirming that there are times when the Eucharist should be denied.

In short, the pope was cryptic on the question, and much ink will be wasted by pundits aiming to show that Francis meant exactly what theyd like him to have meant.

I suspect most readers of The Pillar know that such exercises are rarely illuminating.

Leave a comment

So while everyone talks about that interview, Id like to draw your attention to another one a fascinating - and precisely formulated - set of reflections on the German synodal path, the nature of heresy, and the life of the Church, from Fr. Karl-Heinz Menke, a German dogmatic theologian who won the prestigious Ratzinger Prize in 2017, and whom Pope Francis appointed to the International Theological Commission back in 2014.

The interview includes this important discussion of freedom:

The teaching of the Church presupposes that God has given man real freedom; for in contrast to the animal he can voluntarily be what he should be. When a person is what his Creator intended him to be, he realizes and develops his freedom. And vice versa: if a person is not what God made him to be, he misses being himself - and becomes unfree - a slave to sin.

Seen in this way, freedom is not freedom of choice, but self-commitment to the good. And what is good is not determined by each individual. Ultimately, the content of freedom is love; and what love is, we recognize in creation, with a look at Jesus Christ and the scriptures and traditions that interpret him.

The libertarian concept of freedomis quite different. Freedom understood in a libertarian way determines its content itself [According to this view], whoever wants to be free contradicts himself if he does not in turn grant every other person the recognition he expects from every fellow human being. But what exactly this recognition means is not determined by any external authority such as nature, Scripture or the Magisterium.

A Catholic who thinks as a libertarian will not let bishops dictate whether or not he may receive the Eucharist as a divorced person who has remarried or as a Christian of different denominations. He decides that himself. And he also decides himself whether his sexual relationships - in or outside of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual - correspond to love and thus to the recognition of the freedom of the other person or not.

A libertarian-minded church knows no decreed unity from above, but only unity based on conviction. A church that thinks in a modern way does not sacrifice diversity for unity, but understands unity as a service to diversity. There are - so the libertarians conclude - many interpretations of the recognition of freedom (of love), different interpretations of gender identity; multi-denominational interpretations of the Christ event; dogmas and norms are historically conditioned and can therefore be revised.

Heres the warning:

The vast majority of Catholics in Germany have not alienated themselves from the Church because they have adapted too little, but because they have adapted too much. She no longer has anything to say to the people because she fits her caritas into the structures prescribed by the state.

And heres Menkes sense of the solution:

The future does not lie in the implementation of libertarian freedom thinking, but - for example in the small communities or movements that exemplify their Christian faith in an unabridged and inviting way. From them one can see that attachment to the truth proclaimed by the Church does not bind, but liberates.

Read the whole thing. Use Google Translate if you need to Its not perfect, but itll give you a sense of the text.

This interview lays out the foundation of challenges the Church is experiencing around the globe and the pernicious challenge of a libertarian, non-Christian vision of what it means to be free.It draws from the documents of the Second Vatican Council, aiming to interpret culture through their lens.

Yesterday, many of us toasted our freedom, and watched fireworks memorialize it in the sky.

Today, lets commit to a vision of freedom that sees Christ at the center of history, and knows that he is the object of our liberty.

Have a good week.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

JD Flynneditor-in-chiefThe Pillar

Here is the original post:

Christ: The center of history, and the source of our freedom - The Pillar

Responding to Ms. Fahrigs letter (Daily Bee, June 23). In no way did I intend to denigrate those that voted. I was addressing the 50% of age-eligible Idahoans who arent even registered to vote. Apparently they dont feel the need to participate in our democracy and that really disappoints me.

Another disappointment was that only 44% of those registered Bonner County voters even bothered to vote. As a result of this, 18% of those that voted decided who would represent the GOP in the November election. That translates out to approximately 10% of the age-eligible population decided our senator. That is a very disappointing commentary on involvement in our republic.

The disgusting portion of events was the manner in which the senatorial election was decided. Through misinformation, disinformation and lies over months prior, a majority of the voters were lead to believe that the incumbent needed to be ousted. Stooping that low to win is disgusting.

It doesnt matter if one is a Constitutionalist, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat or independent, we need to vote. Only through the ballot box can anyone make a difference. If you dont vote you dont have a voice. Do yourself and Idaho a favor and vote.

GIL BEYER

Sandpoint

Read this article:

Regardless of party affiliation, we all need to vote - Bonner County Daily Bee

My fellow music fans, when this nine-member geriatric group shambles out of its chambers and onto the stage, plopping themselves down to sing for their supper, get ready for these Supremes to rock your world.

Wearing old timey black, ankle-length robes like a band of Colonial fire-and-brim-stoners, the sedentary songsters rip right into their increasingly far-right discography.

Without a doubt the right-wing Supremes are in charge up there, will be for decades to come. Just check out their song choices.

Their new album showcases ten of their docket-topping antediluvian anthems. The collection wont be going viral because its only available on vinyl. Heres a sampling.

Stop! In the Name of Originalism laments that 2022 is not 1788, when almost everything that was fun was illegal, when women couldnt vote or own property in much of America. This tone-deaf nostalgic dirge will make you weep.

The second cut on the album is My World is Empty without the Federalist Society. Six of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices are current or former members of this conservative/libertarian organization, and its a big reason many of them got nominated for the high court. BTW six of the nine also are Catholics. Saints preserve us!

FYI to Supremes fans: the band soon will be recording a cover of Elvis Presleys blues rocker, Thats All Right, Mama, changing the title slightly to: Were All Right, Mamas, Get Over It!

One of their all-time bestselling ballads is next on the album: Love is Here and Youre Under Arrest. Its a throwback to the time when gay marriage and contraceptives were illegal. At least one of the Supremes has mused openly about revisiting the court decisions that made them legal.

What about the other justices, what are they thinking about overturning the 21stCentury? No ones knows even when after they are asked direct questions under oath at their confirmation hearings. Eels are less slippery. Once theyre on the bench, however, the band members totally rock out.

The groups recent 45 (remember them?) is a feisty two-sided polemic that bluntly addresses its approach to long settled case law. River Deep,Stare Decisisa Molehill is a saucy ditty proclaiming the willingness of the current Supremes to go where earlier justices would not tread. Hey, Rock N Roll is all about pushing the limits.

On the flip side youll flip over Baby LoveWhere did Our Precedents go? This sarcastic single mocks left-leaning critics of the slew of recent reversals of established law promulgated by the band.

To the tune of I Hear a Symphony, the 1966 oldie-but-goodie by Diana, Mary and Florence, the new Supremes belt out an exuberant I Smell a Permanent Conservative Super Majority. The meter is all wrong, but the message is clear.

In that same triumphalist vein is Someday Well be Together Again (NOT!).

No review would be complete without mentioning the groups decidedly creepy Love is Like an Itching in Our Robes. Theyre only human, after all. Who knew?

Unless I miss my guess, youre already on your way up to the attic to look for your Victrola.

David Holahan is a freelance writer in East Haddam.

Go here to see the original:

Opinion: Greatest hits of the far-right Supremes - The Connecticut Mirror

Colorado's Jared Polis might be the most libertarian governor in America, at a time when his big-state Democratic colleagues are getting exposed as hypocrites while presiding over historic population declines or getting kicked out of office for sexual harassment and sending COVID infected patients back to nursing homes and then lying about it. I'm not sure that Polis' 2014 claim in the pages of Reason that "libertarians should vote for Democratic candidates" because they're "more supportive of individual liberty and freedom" has held up, but he's certainly leading by example.

The 46-year-old governor is presiding over one of the fastest-growing states in the country and a place that has one of the lowest death rates during the pandemic. He pushed back against members of his own party to remove mask mandates, and he consistently argued that public health decisions should be made at as local a level as possible. Last fall, at a conference held by the conservative Steamboat Institute, he declared that the state income tax rate "should be zero" and has supported ballot initiatives that reduced the rate. Polis has embraced occupational licensing reform and was an outspoken defender of bitcoin back in 2014 when Sen. Joe Manchin (DW.Va.) called on then-head of the Federal Reserve Janet Yellen to ban it.

The openly gay, married father of two recently signed a free-range parenting bill that effectively relegalizes the sort of Colorado childhood he recalls as the son of two ex-hippie parents: "Just because a kid is playing alone outside, it doesn't mean they're in danger," Polis said at the signing ceremony. "It will help decrease false reports sowe can focus on the serious and the real instances of child abuse."

As conservative states pass laws strictly limiting abortions, he signed legislation guaranteeing a woman's right to choose. The founder of two charter schools, he is an outspoken advocate for school choice, saying earlier this year that "public school choice is an asset to improve all public schools." A former tech entrepreneur and five-term congressman, Polis is steadfast against limiting speech rights or treating social media platforms as utilities that can't moderate content or bounce users for transgressing terms of service.

In a wide-ranging conversation with Reason, Polis talks about trying to govern from the middle, takes shots at President Joe Biden's moves on free trade and immigration, and repeats his argument that libertarians should vote for Democrats. Up for re-election in the fall and a heavy favorite to win a second term, Polis also discusses his political ambitions as a rising star in a party that is expected to get blown out in the midterm elections.

Link:

Jared Polis: The Most Libertarian Governor in America? - Reason

Dear Capitolisters,

As Ive mentioned here before, I hail from the right side of the libertarian spectrum and have long worked with conservatives, center-right media, and Republican politicians on various policy issues.Back then, wed surely disagree on specific line itemsIraq or the drug war, for examplebut we always shared a core belief in certain fundamental principles about government, public policy, and life.These principles, not necessarily shared by the left (for better or worse), ensured that wed remain close allies in the political arena, regardless of our disagreements on discrete issues. (I even recall one time scoffing at a former colleagues liberaltarian project in the early 2000s, because the left and libertarians had far more fundamental disagreements about natural rights, limited government, the rule of law, and related issues.)

As readers of The Dispatch are surely aware, this fusionist alliance has, in recent years, frayed, with many self-identified conservatives today accusing us libertarians of not only being turtleneck-wearing, election-losing chart jockeys but actually causing many of the rights (and Americas) problems.But I think the Florida-Disney sagaparticularly many mainstream conservatives reactions theretomay take the schism to a whole new (and bad) level and reveal in the process that, if this is the new conservatism its not very conservative at all.

Link:

What's Conservative About the New Conservatism? - The Dispatch

Jake Hoffman| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Imagine a corporation granted power over the government to decide its own environmental policy, develop roads and buildings at itsdiscretion, build itsown public services, hire itsown police force, harness itsown energy sources andpay less taxes to do all of this.

This is the libertarian fever dream that Walt Disney World has enjoyed in Florida since 1967. Its the kind of extreme private ownership that would make Ayn Rand tell you to dial it back a bit. Yet today we find Florida Democrats and Democratsacross the country lambasting Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Republicans for dissolvingthe Reedy Creek District, which provides Disney with its own city and basically gives it aself-regulating government.

More: OPINION: The media missed the real story of CPAC 2022

While I generally view myself as a libertarian whoadvocates for deregulation and less government interference in private business, I can only sit back and chuckle over the fact that, first and foremost, the Disney anarcho-capitalist experiment clearly worked.

Florida gave a giant corporation free rein and Disney turned it into the happiest place on Earth; itcreated the most jobs in Florida for decades and was responsible fortens of billions of dollars in economic impact to the state each year. On top of all that, Disney's public transit system is probably the best in the country.

That said, however, Florida has not afforded every corporation the same special treatment that it has given Disney. So what we really have here is crony capitalism at its finest, and it is high time to take back the reins and stop picking winners and losers you know, the very thing that small-government Republicans should have been doing all along.

Of course, I would love to create a special district around my house so that I couldappoint myself president and self-govern my businesses.But thats not the world we live in, so until everyone gets the same autonomy that Disney enjoyed for 50-plus years, dissolving Reedy Creek is a justified move on principle alone.

Yet that reality still hasn't prevented progressives frombending over backwardto become huge advocates for Disney, a cult-like beneficiary of slave labor that has ignored Uyghur genocide in China and is no stranger to beingculturally insensitive.

In fact, there are Democrats across the country pleading for Disney to come to their state! For example, Colorado'sDemocratic Gov, Jared Polis is openly recruitingDisney to relocate to Colorado, and declaring that his state doesn't "meddle in the affairs (of private business)."

First off, that notion is a total lie, unless you adopt the anarcho-capitalist view that Disney should be its own government.But more importantly, is this going to be the hot take from Democrats? That they want to let corporations self-govern? That they want corporations to get special taxing districts and to get to decide their own environmental policies?

The reality is the left is just engaging in its usual virtue-signaling, but this time its not even making an attempt to beideologically consistent. Or maybe its just that in theliberal hierarchy of needs, teaching kindergartners about sexuality, gender identityand personal pronouns is now at the top of the pyramid instead of loudly demandingmore corporate taxation and more central government control.

Ihave so many questions that I'dlove for liberalsto answer, and here are some of them:

What would Disney need to do to lose itsspecial privileges?

What happens if Disney starts to teach Christianity in its childrens programming?

Do you have any idea how many bills Disney has lobbied for or against over the years and how much power it holdsin Tallahassee?

If youre a politician whowants to enable Disney by incentivizing it to come to your state, are you ready to cede power to Disney's CEO and the woke mob that now runs thecompany's public policy decisions?

If youre able todo all of themental gymnastics it takes to genuinely support Disney for getting involved in a culturewar piece of legislation while simultaneously condemning Republicans for removing Disney's special district, then youreally need to get your political philosophy straightened out.

Ifor one think that the more you remove corporate influences on our lawmakers, the better outcomes we will get overall. I believe that we should deregulate businesses as much as possible. Ibelieve thatthe state has a responsibility toprotect people and property. And I believe that our public schools should not be reassigning the genders of first-graders behind the backs of their parents.

All of these beliefs are beliefs I held before this Disney fiasco, and they are beliefs I will continue to hold when this controversy finally fades away.So atleast I know where I stand on the political spectrum, unlike the overly emotional progressives who are now rushing to defend Disney while abandoning any sense of intellectual integrity.

Then again, I suspect that many on the outraged left are actuallyjust coming downwith a new variant of Trump Derangement Syndrome the virulent strain that's also known as DeSantis Derangement Syndrome.

Dont worry: I have no desire to force those who are stricken with DeSantis Derangement Syndrometo take a vaccine shot to treat it. But at the very least, the liberals now feelingtheeffects of this condition should be actively exploring alternative sources of information to counter all of the sickeningmisinformation they'regetting on the Reedy Creek issue.

Jake Hoffmanis executive director of the Tampa Bay Young Republicans. He is a Republican Party candidate in Hillsborough County for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives.

Read this article:

OPINION: Progressives are hypocritical in defending Disney - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Steve Brawner| Special to the Times Record

Give credit to Attorney General Leslie Rutledge where credit is due: She showed up.

Rutledge participated in one of a series of debates held April 21 by the Arkansas Press Association for four of the states contested constitutional offices. Hers, for lieutenant governor, was the most meaningful of the debates because she, the frontrunner, was there.

Rutledge is the frontrunner because of her statewide office and name recognition, her Rutledge Report and other public service announcements, and her overwhelming fundraising advantage stemming from her aborted run for governor.

A candidate in her position might find a reason to skip the lieutenant governor debate, which was not broadcast.

Two of the other clear frontrunners skipped their debates: Sarah Huckabee Sanders in the governors race and Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin in the attorney generals race. Sanders, the overwhelming favorite, is not making herself available to reporters much, so its not surprising she wouldnt appear in a room full of them. Shes raised more than $14 million, so she doesnt need any media coverage. Sen. John Boozman also recently said he would not debate his three Republican primary opponents.

In the 2020 elections, Sen. Tom Cotton skipped the debates sponsored by Arkansas PBS. These are tame, controlled affairs where the candidates dont question each other, but Cotton didnt think it was worth his time and/or the risk. His libertarian opponent, Ricky Harrington, had the stage to himself. Harrington is running for governor this year.

But there was Rutledge sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with her seven opponents. The Republicans are Surgeon General Greg Bledsoe; former Republican Party Chairman Doyle Webb; state Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway; Washington County Judge Joseph Wood; and Attorney Chris Bequette. The non-Republicans are Democrat Kelly Krout and Libertarian Frank Gilbert.

The eight are vying for an office that does little. The lieutenant governor presides over the Senate when its in session and becomes governor when the elected governor dies, leaves office or cant serve. Thats pretty much it.

These days, campaigns are based largely on party labels, ads, and endorsements by ideological interest groups and politicians. Theyre highly scripted affairs where candidates relentlessly try to stay on message.

In a debate, its just them on a stage, where they might go off message. They might say something embarrassing. They might say what they really think and get in trouble with their base or with what few undecided voters are left.

Debates are political theater, and they probably dont tell us much about how a candidate would actually govern. But they do give candidates a chance to state their case why they should be elected in a less scripted environment. They also let them say why an opponent shouldnt be elected, and to do it like a real man or real woman: Face-to-face instead of hiding behind an anonymous narrator in a 30-second attack ad funded by other people.

Its unclear what debates will look like in the future. Recently, the Republican National Committee voted to withdraw from the Commission on Presidential Debates, the bipartisan entity that organizes the ones featuring Republicans and Democrats (and Ross Perot in 1992). The RNC says the CPD is biased.

Were a long way from the fall of 2024, so who knows what will happen between now and then. Regardless, its an unfortunate decision because it further chips away trust in our elections.

And that trust has been eroded a lot lately. Between denying election results, claiming the whole system is rigged, and impeaching presidents regularly, were less and less willing to accept the will of the voters and less inclined to believe in the democratic process if our side doesnt win.

And thats kind of scary. If you say the whole process is illegitimate, it makes it easier to justify trying to overturn an election. It could happen. There was an attempt to do it a year-and-a-half ago. Soon someone might actually succeed. Eventually wed stop having real elections at all, like a lot of countries.

I guess Ive strayed a bit from the lieutenant governors debate, so lets return to it. Kudos to Rutledge, and also to Bledsoe, Webb, Rapert, Wood, Bequette, Krout and Gilbert, along with the participants in the other debates.

They showed up.

Steve Brawner is a freelance journalist and syndicated columnist. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com or follow him on Twitter at @stevebrawner.

Read the rest here:

At least Rutledge and her opponents showed up | Steve Brawner - SWTImes

Age: 68

Occupation: Nebraska Lieutenant Governor since 2013

Political party: Republican

Mike Foley was the state auditor for two terms then ran for governor in 2014, lost to Pete Ricketts, and was appointed by Ricketts as his running mate to become the current lieutenant governor. Foley couldve run for governor again, but he said he decided to run for auditor because of his skills and interests.

"I enjoyed my work as state auditor when I previously held that position. I was a very aggressive state auditor, worked very hard to expose waste, fraud inefficiency in government operations and root that out of the system," he said.

Foley intends to focus on the largest agency in state government, the Department of Health and Human Services, if elected. He said hes in the best position to be state auditor because he understands the complexities of state government and has worked there for 22 years, including six years in the Legislature.

"I look forward to returning to that [auditor's] office where I can do some more good work for the people of Nebraska, to protect their hard earned tax dollars from being wasted," he said.

Optometrist Katrina Tomsen of Upland is also running for the seat unopposed with the libertarian party.

Original post:

Meet the Republican Candidates for State Auditor and Treasurer - Nebraska Public Media | News

What, pray tell, had roused freedom from its slumber?

The Supreme Courts Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights. I thought then, like most conservatives, that the court was correct. Unlike many these days, I still do. The New York Times Co. has every right to argue for its preferred policies, and so does Koch Industries.

Its difficult to exaggerate how committed the right once was to this principle and how much it appalled the left. Masterpiece Cakeshop, we conservatives contended, had every right not to be compelled to make gay wedding cakes because of the owners religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby had a First Amendment right to defy provisions of the Affordable Care Act that violated its religious freedom. We won both arguments at the Supreme Court.

That era is now officially over.

Florida recently passed the Parental Rights in Education bill (tendentiously called the Dont Say Gay law by detractors). The Walt Disney Company, under CEO Bob Chapek, tried to stay out of the controversy. But a pincer movement of internal and external political pressure forced the company to publicly oppose the bill.

Worse, a video of a Disney meeting at which executives boasted of their not at all secret agenda to incorporate gay and transgender themes into Disney content was leaked at the worst possible moment. The very online right was already in a full-blown moral panic about pedophilia, basically holding that anyone who opposed the bill was either a groomer or groomer friendly. (Once a term for adults who manipulate underage children for sexual abuse, groomer suddenly meant dissenters from a moral crusade.)

Against the broader backdrop of the populist fatalism of the Trump era, which holds that conservatives never win when they play by the rules, it was something of a perfect storm.

Florida Republicans, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis, voted to strip Walt Disney World of its special status under something called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Crafted by Republicans in 1967, the improvement district deal exempted Disney World from zoning and tax laws in exchange for Disney transforming a massive amount of swampy land into the Magic Kingdom and running it without taxpayer money. Economically and politically, it was win-win for both Disney and Floridauntil last week, when a remarkable number of politicians suddenly embraced a purist libertarian opposition to such public-private partnerships of which there are more than 1,000 in Florida.

Of course, Orlando International Airport and Daytona International Speedway, with similar exemptions, will be fine, because the libertarian arguments are entirely pretextual. This was about punishing Disney. Floridas lieutenant governor even admits that if Disney simply changed its politics, everything could go back to normal. Oh, is that all?

The view on the right is that DeSantis is a courageous brawler, beating back a behemoth of woke capitalism. Its certainly true that DeSantis comes out a winner on the national stage as he contemplates a presidential run in 2024.

I will also concede that DeSantis supporters have a point. If corporations will let themselves be bullied out of their lanes by the left, they shouldnt be surprised if they invite retaliation from the right. As problematic as I find this whole spectacle, it would be a good thing if corporations thought twice about picking sides in the culture war. As Michael Jordan once said, Republicans buy sneakers too.

But whether the costs outweigh the benefits is unknowable, particularly in a climate in which what constitutes winning is redefined on the fly by Twitter mobs. After all, as National Reviews Charlie Cooke notes, DeSantis had already won: Disney took its shot at the Florida parental rights bill, and even though all of its sponsors were recipients of Disneys political contributions, Disney lost. But the rights equivalent of Twitter-addicted woke activists wanted a pound of Mouse flesh.

Privately, some defenders say the Reedy Creek Improvement District rescission, which doesnt go into effect until next year, will never happen. Saner heads will prevail, opting not to shift massive burdens onto county governments and taxpayers (this would explain why Disney has largely stayed mum). But that theory assumes DeSantis is the mobs master, not its servant.

And even ifa big ifcorporate America takes the right lessons here, theres no chance activists on the left or right will, at least for the foreseeable future. When you reward mobs, you get more mobs.

More:

DeSantis Beat DisneyThen the Mob Wanted More - The Dispatch

Thursday marks the beginning of early voting during North Carolinas 2022 primary election cycle. The delayed timeline from redistricting lawsuits created a unique timeline and some voters may be returning to cast their ballots in-person for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heres what you need to know about early voting before casting your ballot in Orange County.

This early voting period, there are five polling places in Orange County: Orange Works at Hillsborough Commons, Carrboro Town Hall Complex, Chapel of the Cross, Efland Ruritan Club and Seymour Senior Center. The Orange County Board of Elections office will not be an early voting site.

(Via Orange County Board of Elections)

Early voting runs from April 28 through May 14. Weekday early voting is open 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. On Sunday, May 1 the precincts will be open from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., and Saturday, May 7 and Saturday, May 14 voting will be open 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. There is no early voting Saturday, April 30 or Sunday, May 8.

Some Chapel Hill voters may vote in Chatham or Durham counties. To learn more about early voting in Chatham County, click here. To learn more about early voting in Durham County, click here.

On Election Day, Tuesday May 17, polling places are open 6:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. During Election Day voters must vote at their assigned precinct.

Voters can register to vote at an early voting location. Voters must be a resident of North Carolina and their respective county for at least 30 days prior to the election. Additionally, voters who turn 18 years old by the general election can vote during the primary.

North Carolina has semi-closed primaries. This means unaffiliated voters may choose a Democrat, Republican or Libertarian ballot. Voters registered as Democrat, Republican or Libertarian will receive the ballot matching their voter registration.

Voters will see non-partisan races, like the Carrboro Town Council special election and Orange County Schools Board of Education, on their ballot regardless of political affiliation.

Voters can check their registration, see their assigned polling place, and view a sample ballothere.

All voters must have registered to vote at their current address in the county by Friday, April 22 in order to cast their ballots on Election Day.

A photo ID is not required for voting in North Carolina this election cycle.

Here are some select races Orange and Chatham county voters will see in their ballots. Candidates are listed in alphabetical order by first name and parties in alphabetical order. Incumbents in local races have their names bolded.

To see a sample ballot for the 2022 primary elections, visit this North Carolina Board of Elections web page.

North Carolinas primary election day is set for Tuesday, May 17, with early voting starting on Thursday, April 28.

For more election coverage and candidate introductions, visit ChapelborosLocal Election Coverage page.

Chapelboro.comdoes not charge subscription fees. You can support local journalism and our mission to serve the community.Contribute today every single dollar matters.

Related

Link:

Early Voting Starts Thursday: Here's Where to Go in Orange County - Chapelboro.com

Freedom is awaking from its coma today because of a huge, huge, huge Supreme Court decision huge, Rush Limbaugh declared in 2010. I cannot tell you how big this is.

What, pray tell, had roused freedom from its slumber?

The Supreme Courts Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision, which ruled that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. I thought then, like most conservatives, that the court was correct. Unlike many these days, I still do. The New York Times Inc. has every right to argue for its preferred policies, and so does Koch Inc.

Its difficult to exaggerate how committed the right once was to this principle and how much it appalled the left. Masterpiece Cakeshop, we conservatives contended, had every right not to be compelled to make gay wedding cakes because of the owners religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby had a 1st Amendment right to defy provisions of the Affordable Care Act that violated its religious freedom. We won both arguments at the Supreme Court.

That era is now officially over.

Florida recently passed the Parental Rights in Education bill (tendentiously called the Dont Say Gay law by detractors). The Disney Co., under Chief Executive Bob Chapek, tried to stay out of the controversy. But a pincer movement of internal and external political pressure forced the company to publicly oppose the bill.

Worse, a video of a Disney meeting at which executives boasted of their not at all secret agenda to incorporate gay and transgender themes into Disney content was leaked at the worst possible moment. The very online right was already in a full-blown moral panic about pedophilia, basically holding that anyone who opposed the bill was either a groomer or groomer friendly. (Once a term for adults who manipulate underage children for sexual abuse, groomer suddenly meant dissenters from a moral crusade.)

Against the broader backdrop of the populist fatalism of the Trump era, which holds that conservatives never win when they play by the rules, it was something of a perfect storm.

Florida Republicans, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis, voted to strip Disney World of its special status under something called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Crafted by Republicans in 1968, the improvement district deal exempted Disney World from zoning and tax laws in exchange for Disney transforming a massive amount of swampy land into the Magic Kingdom and running it without taxpayer money. Economically and politically, it was win-win for both Disney and Florida until last week, when a remarkable number of politicians suddenly embraced a purist libertarian opposition to such public-private partnerships of which there are over a thousand in Florida.

Of course, Orlando International Airport and Daytona International Speedway, with similar exemptions, will be fine, because the libertarian arguments are entirely pretextual. This was about punishing Disney. Floridas lieutenant governor even admits that if Disney simply changed its politics, everything could go back to normal. Oh, is that all?

The view on the right is that DeSantis is a courageous brawler, beating back a behemoth of woke capitalism. Its certainly true that DeSantis comes out a winner on the national stage as he contemplates a presidential run in 2024.

I will also concede that DeSantis supporters have a point. If corporations will let themselves be bullied out of their lanes by the left, they shouldnt be surprised if they invite retaliation from the right. As problematic as I find this whole spectacle, it would be a good thing if corporations thought twice about picking sides in the culture war. As Michael Jordan once said, Republicans buy sneakers too.

But whether the costs outweigh the benefits is unknowable, particularly in a climate in which what constitutes winning is redefined on-the-fly by Twitter mobs. After all, as National Reviews Charlie Cooke notes, DeSantis had already won: Disney took its shot at the Florida parental rights bill, and even though all of its sponsors were recipients of Disneys political contributions, Disney lost. But the rights equivalent of Twitter-addicted woke activists wanted a pound of Mouse flesh.

Privately, some defenders say the Reedy Creek Improvement District recission, which doesnt go into effect until next year, will never happen. Saner heads will prevail, opting not to shift massive burdens onto county governments and taxpayers (this would explain why Disney has largely stayed mum). But that theory assumes DeSantis is the mobs master, not its servant.

And even if a big if corporate America takes the right lessons here, theres no chance activists on the left or right will, at least for the foreseeable future. When you reward mobs, you get more mobs.

@JonahDispatch

Read the rest here:

Jonah Goldberg: The right-wing mob gets its pound of Mouse flesh from Disney -- or does it? - Los Angeles Times

Monday, April 25th 2022 - 20:55 UTC Argentina's peso is not even good as fertilizer, Milei explained

Argentine Libertarian Deputy Javier Milei Sunday insisted on dollarizing the country's economy during a rally in Mendoza where he also vowed that such would be his first step if elected President in 2023.

Milei also said the Argentine peso was the currency of the caste, because it loses its purchasing power every minute due to inflation, causing additional trouble to the working class.

The economist Milei's views are not matched by those of many of his colleagues who have rejected dollarizing and warned of the negative consequences such a move would have.

We have to get rid of the peso garbage, which is not even good for fertilizer, Milei said at Mendoza's O'Higgins Park while giving a masterclass attended by over 12,000 people.

That bunch of thieves said that the peso is to have sovereignty. You talk about sovereignty when you want the people to be slaves, Milei warned after reviewing the history of inflation and income redistribution policies.

Milei also explained he would start by moving from fractional banking to an anti-corruption system with Simons banking to then develop a dollarization strategy.

The only ones who will lose with these measures are the corrupt politicians of the caste, Milei promised.

We do not need a lender of last resort with Simons banking. Politicians, stop lying to the people, stop putting fear in them, he said.

Milei also said he believed the country was rich in lack of opportunities, due to the filthy political caste we have, which expels our children, which led to increasing migration. To reverse that trend, Milei insisted the only solution is to go back to the ideas of freedom and get the State out of the way.

The Libertarian Deputy also referred to his colleagues as econochantas (bogus experts) who are functional to the caste and who exist on both sides of the 'crack'.

Read the rest here:

Milei gets 12000 people to attend class on inflation in Mendoza - MercoPress

Longtime lawmaker Lester Jackson is leaving the Senate, setting up a four-candidate race to succeed him

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on the lingering effects of 2020 election

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger talks about how the results of the 2020 election and lawsuits have lingered in state politics ever since.

Savannah Morning News

Around the Georgia Capitol, the Savannah senators are among the most familiar faces in the building.

Lester Jackson (D-District 2) has served in the Georgia General Assembly for 24 years and previously chaired the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus. Ben Watson (R-District 2) joined the Legislature in 2011 and chairs one of the Senates highest-profile committees, Health and Human Services.

Georgia Senate: After 24 years, Lester Jackson completes his final session as a state representative

The 2022 election will introduce at least two new faces to the ranks of Savannah-area members.

Watson is likely to return, but Jackson isnt running for re-election to his Senate seat, choosing instead to mount a statewide campaign for Georgia Labor commissioner. Additionally, the 2021 redistricting session added a third Senate district, District 4, to Chatham County.

Georgia Senate map surprise: Chatham adds third Senate post as part of redistricting

Two Democrats are challenging Watson while four candidates - two Democrats, two Republicans - are running for Jacksons open seat. Republican Billy Hickman, who resides in Statesboro, is running unopposed in District 4 and will represent a swath of West Chatham residents.

That primary will be held on May 24, with early voting beginning May 2.

Heres a look at the candidates for the local Georgia Senate posts.

Story continues below

Savannah-area election races

U.S. House, District 1

Georgia General Assembly, House races

Georgia General Assembly, Senate races

Georgia voting laws, what you need to know

Jones serves as the chairman of the Chatham Democratic Committee and previously sat on the Chatham County Commission. He mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Chatham Commission chairman in 2020, losing to Chester Ellis.

Niquette previously ran for the Georgia House in 2020, mounting an unsuccessful challenge for the seat held by Rep. Ron Stephens. He is campaigning on updating technology in public schools, protecting the environment, expanding Medicaid and criminal justice reform.

A physician and the brother-in-law of former U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston, Watson served two terms in the Georgia House before being elected to the Georgia Senate. He has championed health care reform throughout his political career.

Mallow joined the Georgia House in 2021 after winning a 2020 election runoff by 19 votes. A district executive with the Boy Scouts of America, Mallow is a champion for Georgias youth and also advocates for health care reform and improving mental health services

Scott is a district manager for Advance Auto Parts and a ministry leader with Overcoming by Faith church. He ran unsuccessfully for a Chatham County Commission post in the 2020 election.

Yasger is a U.S. Army veteran and member of the Georgia Army National Guard. His platform includes many Libertarian-leaning views, such as decriminalization of marijuana. He ran for U.S. House in 2020, finishing third in the Republican primary.

Young switched parties to run for the Senate post after a failed bid to win a Georgia House seat in 2020 and 2021 elections. He is a military veteran and a retired vending machine business owner.

A Statesboro accountant, Hickman joined the Georgia General Assembly in 2020 by winning the seat long held by Georgia political Icon Jack Hill. Hickman said he feels a strong connection to Chatham County, as his wife is a native of Bloomingdale.

Read the rest here:

Who is running for Georgia Senate in the 2022 primary? - Savannah Morning News

While the talk is about free markets and private propertyand it is more respectable than it was a few decades ago to defend near-complete laissez-fairethe bulk of the intellectual community almost automatically favors any expansion of government power so long as it is advertised as a way to protect individuals from big bad corporations, relieve poverty, protect the environment, or promote equality.

Milton Friedman, introduction to The Road to Serfdom 50th-anniversary edition, 1994

Originally published at Josiah Barlett Center for Public Policy

The right-of-center movement in the United States is shifting toward statism in a way even many of its self-proclaimed liberty activists dont realize.

Responding to relentless left-wing provocation, people on the right think theyre defending liberty by using the state to block or punish private-sector actions they dislike. Instead, theyre expanding state control over private behavior.

The Live free or die state is not immune to this shift. Here, lawmakers who believe themselves to be righteous champions of liberty are trying to extend state control over private contracts and decisions.

To pick one example, considerHouse Bill 1210, relative to exemptions from vaccine mandates. The bill requires any employer that receives any public funds, including grants or contracts, to allow a right of conscience exemption from vaccination.

Framed as a defense of individual liberty, the bill actually would reduce liberty.

If enacted, it would weaken the right of free individuals to associate only with others who accept their dedication to fighting infectious diseases through vaccination.

Vaccination status is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex. It is a choice, and not a purely individualistic one. It can have profound, even life or death, consequences for others.

Were the bill to pass, health care facilities such as nursing homes and hospitals would be required by law to hire employees who refuse to vaccinate themselves against any and all infectious diseases. The bill covers all vaccines, not just those for COVID-19.

The bill restricts freedom of association in the name of bodily integrity. But someone who refuses to vaccinate is making a choice to give up bodily integrity.

A virus is a foreign living organism that invades a body and uses it as a host. Viruses cannot replicate by themselves. They infect host cells and use them for reproduction, usually killing them in the process. Vaccines are designed to protect cells against invasion and destruction by alien organisms. Their purpose is to preserve bodily integrity.

Viruses arent libertarian. Theyll infect anyone they can. People have a right to choose to associate with others who agree to vaccinate. This bill would violate that right in pursuit of a non-existent right to join a group without agreeing to its terms.

Conservatives can easily see that it would be a violation of individual rights for the state to require religious employers or ideological organizations to hire anyone regardless of their beliefs. This bill violates the freedom of association in a similar way.

Should HB 1210 become law, a cancer patient would be unable to seek medical care in New Hampshire in a facility with a fully vaccinated staff. Thats not protecting peoples rights. Its forcing people to associate with others who might be a danger to themselves.

The libertarian saying that your rights end where my nose begins applies here. Going unvaccinated (or not) is not a lifestyle choice like getting tattooed or piercing ones nose. It can have a direct, potentially catastrophic effect on others. And others have a right to protect themselves against that through their associations.

LikeHouse Bill 1469, which seeks to restrict the free association rights of all New Hampshire businesses under the guise of regulating banks, HB 1210 would expand the power of the state to regulate economic transactions in new ways.

Supporters of such market interventions honestly think they are taking steps to protect individuals. But theyre mistaken. Unwittingly, they are moving to empower collectivism and weaken the liberty of the individual.

See more here:

From Vaccines to Banks, NH Sees Misguided Efforts To Restrict Freedom in the Name of Liberty - NH Journal

The 2022 midterm elections are rapidly approaching and there is a lot on the line this November. Democrats may have come into 2021 with a majority, but the last year and a half has included a series of unfortunate events for the party and weak approval ratings of the President. This has left the republican party confident and optimistic going into the election cycle.

There are a lot of important issues at play in this election. The ever-looming and evolving COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to be handled is huge on voters minds. The current astronomical gas prices, inflation and the economy in general are also a top priority.

While these issues can have major impacts on the daily lives of many Americans, they are not the only issues voters care about. Marijuana legalization continues to be a major political issue, and for many voters it is currently a top priority this election season. In fact,according to a recentpoll, the majority of democratic voters think passing a bill to legalize marijuana is an important or top priority.

RELATED:What Do Republicans Need In Cannabis Legalization Bill To Support It?

There areseveral statesthat may have marijuana ballot-measures in November. Maryland, Missouri, Ohio and South Dakota are just a few states where an important vote will appear on the ballot, which means marijuana legalization will likely play an even larger role in these states elections.

Being a democratic politician no longer guarantees the support of cannabis enthusiasts. Many voters are looking for real action, and soon. Democrats, starting with President Biden, must lead on cannabis policy or risk ceding the very real voter enthusiasm it inspires to more libertarian voices,according toFortune. Time is running out for Democrats to make a strong stand on cannabis legalization before Republicans eventually do so on their own.

It is not only democrats who are interested in marijuana legalization.The latest Galluppolldata suggests that 2 in every 3 Americans support the legalization of marijuana. These record high numbers further show that marijuana is not a partisan issue. Any politician who takes a strong stance against marijuana, or one who drags their feet in the legalization process, risks being ousted from their role if their district resides in a competitive area.

RELATED:More Red States Are Going Wild For Weed

Conservatives have noticed this inaction, and,according to Forbes, some Republicans are starting to take action of their own that could eventually lead to them reaping the political rewards that will come from legalization from a Democratic party that has every opportunity to own this issue.

Take South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace, for example. She recently introduceda republican-authoredbillto legalize cannabis at a federal level. Rep. Mace is up for reelection this year. It appears as though in most states, regardless of your political party, supporting cannabis legalization, at least in some form, is looking like a more promising route to victory than campaigning to continue its prohibition.

What this means for the future of marijuana legalization remains unclear, but the growing public support of marijuana is certainly starting to shape the way politicians approach the issue on the campaign trail.

View post:

How Cannabis Is Shaping the Midterm Elections and the Campaign Trail - Green Entrepreneur