Who Is Immediately Vested Upon Plan Termination? – PLANSPONSOR

I work with a 403(b) plan sponsor that will be terminating its plan. Can you confirm that affected participantsthose who would be immediately vestedonly includes non-vested participants that have not taken their full account value and have not had a 5-year break-in-service? In other words, if a non-vested participant took a distribution one year before the plan termination, that person would not be affected?

Stacey Bradford, Kimberly Boberg, David Levine and David Powell, with Groom Law Group, and Michael A. Webb, vice president, Retirement Plan Services, Cammack Retirement Group, answer:

Correct, non-vested employees who took distributions prior to the plan termination date would not be affected. Per the IRS webpage on 401(k) plan terminations (the rules are the same for 403(b) plans with regard to this particular issue):

100% vesting

All affected participants become fully vested in their account balances on the date of the full or partial plan termination, regardless of the plans vesting schedule.

Full termination Affected participants are current or former employees who havent received full payment of their vested interest by the plan termination date, unless theyve incurred at least 5 consecutive 1-year breaks in service.

Thus, if the participant in question took a full distribution of his vested amount one-year prior to the plan termination date, that person would not need to be fully vested in amounts that were not vested as of the date of that prior distribution because it occurred prior to the plan termination date.

Note that this response only addresses vesting upon plan termination; see our prior Ask the Experts column on this issue of whether such full and immediate vesting can occur on the date there is a complete discontinuance of contributions to a 403(b) plan.

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.

Tags

Reported by

Reprints

Go here to see the original:

Who Is Immediately Vested Upon Plan Termination? - PLANSPONSOR

Letter to the Editor: Thank you | Letters To The Editor – Corsicana Daily Sun

To the Editor: I would like to thank Mark Archibald and the editors of the Daily Sun for including Navarro County's two Libertarian congressional candidates in the Candidate Features.

Voters should be informed about all choices coming up in November, especially voters who may not entirely agree with the positions of the Republican or Democrat parties.

For the November general election, Ed Adams is running for Texas House District 8 Representative; I am running for Texas Congressional District 6 Representative.

For more information, check out Facebook: Ed Adams for Texas House District 8 and Melanie Black, Libertarian for U.S. House of Representatives District 6.

For any questions, email navarro@lptexasorg or post on the Libertarian Party of Navarro County's Facebook page.

Melanie Black

Libertarian Party of Navarro County chair

Original post:

Letter to the Editor: Thank you | Letters To The Editor - Corsicana Daily Sun

Dani Alves: The Reference in Fashion Among Celebrities – The Libertarian Republic

If youre cultivating your personal style, its a great idea to look for references to get an idea of what you truly like. When youre able to draw inspiration from the styles of other people, it can help you envision your future wardrobe. Over time, youll gain the confidence to curate and customize a look thats unique to you.

When you think about most celebrities and fashion icons, they have references and inspirations they draw from in order to channel their most fashion-forward wardrobe. If youre a huge sports fan, look no further than Dani Alves. Dani Alves has a sense of style thats strong, unique and incredibly fly.

If youve followed his journey on Instagram, its not uncommon to see him at the latest fashion shows during the seasonal showcases. If you scroll through his Instagram profile, youll even see him strutting his stuff in a pair of his partners high heels. Its important to note that he actually did a great job. Essentially, Dani Alves is incredibly confident in his manhood, owns his style and cares about no other opinions.

This is the type of attitude you need to develop when youre desiring to create your own fashion-forward closet. When youre getting started, take a look at many of the men celebrity clothing lines that are on the market. Dani Alves has a line that is particularly perfect for the man who loves sports, fashion and athleisure wear. For both men and women, athleisure wear has definitely become a unique niche of its own. There are plenty of ways to rock the athleisure look in a way that helps you look polished, fashion-forward and ready at all times.

When youre able to mix prints well, its a lot easier to stand out as a person with a strong fashion sense. If you take a look at some of the pieces from Dani Alves line, youll see a mix of leopard with roses. Youll see animal prints mixed with black and white patterns. Its a really easy way to execute the mixed print look without thinking about it. You dont have to work on finding a mixed print pair of trousers to go with a specific top. All of the prints are already found in the top. Then, if you pair the top with a nice pair of well-tailored jeans, youre good to go.

Dont underestimate the chicness of all black. Black is naturally slimming. It always looks great on any skin tone. You can wear a simple pair of black leggings with a black jersey or button-down top. Then, if you want to add in some flair like Dani Alves, throw on a black studded leather jacket. Add some chunky Doc Marten boots for a total rocker look. If youre preparing to head to the gym, wear black sweatpants, black sneakers and a sleek black sweatshirt. The key is to make sure all of the pieces fit really well. If they dont, the monochromatic look will just become sloppy.

Dani Alves thrives within the realm of incorporating accessories. Granted, you dont have to get tattoos if you dont want to. However, its good to note that tattoos serve as their own accessories as well. They tell stories. Just try to avoid putting them on your face. Alternatively, you can stay in the realm of removable accessories like gold link chain necklaces, chunky rings and other statement pieces. Always keep a great crossbody bag or a simple pouch on hand in order to keep your essentials close. Its also great to throw on a pair of all-black sunglasses in a chic yet classic style. If you take a look at the glasses Audrey Hepburn wore in the movie, Breakfast at Tiffanys, those options are universally classic and flattering on both men and women.

Tailoring is non-negotiable. If you want to make sure your pieces look polished and refined, get them tailored to fit your body. Even the cheapest blazer at the thrift store can look like a custom Italian fit when its properly tailored. Though its a couple of extra dollars to maintain the pieces, never skip the step of tailoring your clothes.

As you work toward creating a look that works for you, consider pulling from inspirational celebrity icons like Dani Alves. As you study his style and figure out what you like most about it, you can adopt certain parts of it into your wardrobe. Keep in mind that you dont want to copy his look verbatim. If you do that, itll look forced and contrived. Instead, trust your inner instinct to decide what will work for you. You dont want to work on becoming Dani Alves 2.0. Instead, focus on becoming the best version of your fashion-forward self. Then, youll be able to own every part of you that walks into a room and commands the attention.

See the article here:

Dani Alves: The Reference in Fashion Among Celebrities - The Libertarian Republic

Young Oklahomans worried about economy, healthcare, climate ahead of Super Tuesday – WoodwardNews.net

Politically active young Oklahomans are headed to the polls on Tuesday with concerns about healthcare, climate change and the economy, according to a Gaylord News survey.

Survey participants were members of OU College Republicans, Young Democrats of Oklahoma, the OU Student Leftist Union and the OU College of Law.

Sixty-six percent of the 61 people who responded to the Feb. 13-21 survey were 18 to 25 years old. Eighty-four percent were registered voters and said they were politically engaged. Seventy-four percent said they were more politically engaged than their parents.

Forty-three percent identified as Republican and 38% as Democrat. Three percent said they were Libertarian and 16% were Independents.

Thirty-three percent said they were conservative, 23% said they were moderate, 15% were liberal and 12% said they were progressive. Ten percent chose Other.

The economy was ranked as the most important issue by 80% of those surveyed. Healthcare followed at 78%, with immigration and abortion tying for third at 77%.

Joseph Howard, 20, an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps student, is vice president of OU College Republicans, the largest conservative club at the University of Oklahoma. An international studies major, Howard said he represents a new generation of Republican voters more likely to defy stereotypical expectations on issues of race and gender.

People have to understand that gay marriage is the law of the land, Howard said. And I think its incredibly remarkable and incredibly hopeful that we have the first openly gay presidential candidate running right now whos married, whos able to walk on stage and kiss his husband and hold hands with his husband, and nobody really bats an eye.

Howard said older members of his party have ignored or flat-out denied man-made causes of global warming, but he is hopeful younger Republicans can guide the party toward taking environmental issues seriously.

Were stewards of the earth, of one planet, and were ruining it, Howard said. And the Republican Party does have a rich environmental history, going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt creating the National Forest Service and establishing national parks..

Ruben Hernandez, 19, a freshman history major and member of OU College Republicans, said his views are more based on his religious beliefs than political ideology.

Im a Christian first, and a Republican second, he said.

The pro-life movement drew Hernandez, who is Catholic, but he is concerned about poverty and the environment.

My family is one that has come from a lot of poverty. But the way the left has wanted to institute tackling it Ive looked around other Latin American countries whove tried the same measures, and all it does is make sure people are equally poor, rather than giving them the means of social mobility.

Hernandez said the Green New Deal would largely be rendered ineffective because of the wealthy in other countries being able to exploit loopholes.

But I do acknowledge that some regulations will need to be stepped up as technology continues to change and corporations continue to gain more and more power, Hernandez said.

Hernandez said his political advocacy surprised his parents.

My familys had to deal with quite a bit, so they probably see it more as us vs. them, Hernandez said. They just dont think of politics or the grander scheme.

Seventy-nine percent said they followed President Donald Trumps impeachment trial. Fifty-eight percent said they were unfavorable toward Trump before the trial, while 32% said they viewed him favorably and 10% were indifferent. The trial did not change their opinions.

Logan Dunn, 22, a media student of Cherokee descent, grew up near Tulsa. The only child of a single mother, Dunn said she was not politically engaged until recently. She supports Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

A former libertarian who voted for Gary Johnson in 2016, Dunn said he is now a moderate Democrat and supported Andrew Yang.

As much as I like Bernie, hes not going to unite the country, because the right will go insane because they think a socialist is going to ruin America.

Dunn said his mother felt she did not have enough information to glean the right conclusions in the impeachment trial.

After a day and a half, I had to turn it off. Im still anti-Trump for a lot of reasons, but I think the two parties involved [werent] going to come to any agreement regardless, so Im less inclined to care.

The survey suggests that issues, not personalities, are the focus for young voters.

If you consume yourself with the nitty-gritty of everyday politics, instead of actually involving yourself with the issues underlying everything, youre going to end up being a much angrier person, Howard said.

Gaylord College student John Adkins contributed to this report.

Gaylord News is a reporting project of the Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Oklahoma.

See the rest here:

Young Oklahomans worried about economy, healthcare, climate ahead of Super Tuesday - WoodwardNews.net

Seven seats up for election on Texas two courts of last resort – The Center Square

On March 3, 2020, Texans will have the opportunity to vote in primaries for six of the seven seats on Texas two courts of last resort holding elections this year.

Texas is unique in that it is one of two states in the nation with two courts of last resort: a Supreme Court and a Court of Criminal Appeals. The Texas Supreme Court is the court of last resort for civil matters. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the state's court of last resort for criminal matters. Both have nine judgeships.

A Republican primary will take place in the race for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place Three, featuring Bert Richardson and Gina Parker.

The Democratic primaries and candidates are:

Texas Supreme Court, Place One: Amy Clark Meachum and Jerry Zimmerer.

Texas Supreme Court, Place Six: Kathy Cheng and Larry Praeger.

Texas Supreme Court, Place Seven: Brandy Voss and Staci Williams.

Texas Supreme Court, Place Eight: Peter M. Kelly and Gisela Triana.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place Three: William Demond, Elizabeth Davis Frizell, and Dan Wood.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place Four: Tina Yoo Clinton and Steven Miears.

There will also be a general election for Place Nine on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Brandon Birmingham is running unopposed in the Democratic primary and David Newell is running unopposed in the Republican primary.

In addition to those primaries, Libertarian candidate Mark Ash will be running for Place 1 on the Supreme Court, Libertarian candidate William Brian Strange will be running for Place Seven of the Texas Supreme Court, and Libertarian candidate Tom Oxford will be running for Place Eight of the Texas Supreme Court.

The primary is scheduled for March 3, 2020, and a primary runoff is scheduled for May 26, 2020. The general election will occur on November 3, 2020.

The Center Square

Link:

Seven seats up for election on Texas two courts of last resort - The Center Square

Sanders And Bloomberg Both Want To Run Your Life – The National Memo

The Democratic primary battle between Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg could be easily resolved if they would realize how much they have in common. In fact, they would make a great ticket. Imagine the slogan: Sanders-Bloomberg: Because youre tired of running your own life.

Being a moderate libertarian or a libertarian moderate, Im not quite sure Im partial to those passages in the Constitution that say, Congress shall make no law. I have a high regard for both free markets and civil liberties, for both abortion rights and gun rights, for a humane safety net and fiscal prudence. The best government is one that performs only clearly essential functions and performs those well while recognizing its limits not only at home but also abroad.

Anyone of this general cast of mind, of course, can no more tolerate Donald Trump than a lamb could lie down with a Tyrannosaurus rex. Its hard to remember a president so contemptuous of such a wide range of liberties.

Freedom of speech? He wanted NFL players banished for kneeling during the national anthem. Freedom of the press? He regards the media as the enemy of the people. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Trump pulled back federal efforts to curb police abuses. Reproductive rights? Since the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, they have never been at greater risk.

He doesnt like laissez-faire capitalism, as evidenced by his hostility to international trade, his bullying of corporations that dont obey his commands and his bailouts of farmers. He has installed a legion of knaves, hacks and toadies to mishandle the indispensable tasks of the federal government such as fighting global pandemics or protecting the environment. His fiscal record is a fright.

Freedom of speech? He wanted NFL players banished for kneeling during the national anthem. Freedom of the press? He regards the media as the enemy of the people. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Trump pulled back federal efforts to curb police abuses. Reproductive rights? Since the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, they have never been at greater risk.

He doesnt like laissez-faire capitalism, as evidenced by his hostility to international trade, his bullying of corporations that dont obey his commands and his bailouts of farmers. He has installed a legion of knaves, hacks and toadies to mishandle the indispensable tasks of the federal government such as fighting global pandemics or protecting the environment. His fiscal record is a fright.

Either Sanders or Bloomberg would be an improvement, in the same way that it would be better to be trampled by beagles than by buffaloes.But each of these Democrats has plenty of debits on his record. Neither has much commitment to individual freedom as a matter of principle.

Sanders has only contempt for people who gain great wealth by creating something that people want. He wants to punish them even if they have made our lives better.

Its unfair to suggest that his policies would resemble communism. But his defense of Marxist regimes suggests a willingness to excuse harsh methods to advance what he sees as worthy purposes.

Sanders proposal for national rent control combines economic illiteracy with gross federal overreach. He believes in Medicare for All and he does mean all, including those who would rather keep their private health insurance. Its hard to escape the suspicion that in Sanders mind, the compulsory nature of his plan is not a necessary evil but a supreme virtue.

Then theres the matter of paying for it. As The New York Times reported, he estimated Sunday night on 60 Minutes that the price tag for his Medicare for All plan would be about $30 trillion over 10 years, but the revenue he identifies for it in the new outline totals about $17.5 trillion.

Bloomberg is overbearing and intrusive in his own way. As New York City mayor, he barred many businesses from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces on public health grounds though a court overruled him. He waged war on flavored tobacco products and trans fats and required chain restaurants to post calorie counts.

He even deployed full-court pressure tactics to get new mothers to breast-feed, regardless of their needs or desires. The presumption of personal autonomy never found a place in Bloombergs heart.

His faith in coercion helps account for his support of stop-and-frisk tactics by New York police, which put a target on the backs of young Hispanic and African American men, the vast majority of them innocent. Under Bloomberg, the number of such encounters soared seven-fold. Though he now claims credit for reducing them, the reality is that a federal judge ruled the practice unconstitutional.

When that decision came down, Bloomberg raised fears of a lot of people dying. In fact, crime declined after stop and frisk was drastically curtailed. Bloomberg put his instincts above the liberties of New Yorkers, and his instincts proved wrong.

What he and Sanders share is an eagerness to override individual freedom whenever it hinders their plans and an impatience with limits on government authority. Their grand schemes are not as toxic or alarming as Trumps. But under any of these three, the right to be left alone would be left in the lurch.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

View original post here:

Sanders And Bloomberg Both Want To Run Your Life - The National Memo

Bill to regulate facial recognition technology in Utah is unveiled in the legislature – fox13now.com

SALT LAKE CITY A bill that would regulate how Utah law enforcement agencies use facial recognition technology has been unveiled in the state legislature.

Senate Bill 218, sponsored by Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, imposes some strict restrictions and limits its use to Utah's Department of Public Safety only. The agency has faced scrutiny on Capitol Hill over how it has used its facial recognition software at the request of agencies like the FBI and ICE.

FOX 13 reported last year on Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology finding DPS's system had scanned the images of every single person with a Utah driver's license thousands of times to find a wanted person. It alarmed both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, who promised regulation.

DPS has defended the system and insisted there are proper safeguards in place.

The issue has united groups like the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, the ACLU of Utah and the libertarian-leaning Libertas Institute, who have expressed concerns about privacy. In December, Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, told FOX 13 he was considering a bill that would let Utahns "opt in" to having their images used.

That bill was still listed as being "in process" on Saturday. But under Sen. Bramble's SB218, Utah DPS would be put under strict regulation:

The bill was made public on Saturday. A message left with a DPS spokesperson was not immediately returned. The Libertas Institute said it supported the legislation.

"The government has been using this technology for a decade in Utah without public knowledge or legislative oversight," the group said in a statement on its website. "This bill imposes important restrictions to better ensure privacy and appropriate use of new technology."

Read the rest here:

Bill to regulate facial recognition technology in Utah is unveiled in the legislature - fox13now.com

Last chance to cast an early ballot before Super Tuesday [Free read] – Port City Daily

Voters can cast ballots for local, state, and federal offices during the 2020 primary election. (Port City Daily photo/File)

SOUTHEASTERN, N.C. The time for same-day registration during the early voting period is nearing an end ahead of the 2020 primary election. Select polling places have the opportunity to cast ballots in the partisan primary through Saturday before Super Tuesday.

Its important to remember voters may only cast ballots for the party theyre registered for; registered Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic primary unless they alter their voter registration during the early voting period and vice versa. Only voters registered as unaffiliated may only choose between Republican, Democratic, or Libertarian ballots in the primary.

Brunswick County is hosting early voting hours at five locations. This includes the Brunswick CountyBoard of Elections Office,Leland Cultural Arts Center,The Brunswick Center at Southport,National Guard Armoryin Shallotte, and theSouthwest Brunswick Branch Library. Remaining early voting hours at these locations include:

New Hanover County is hosting early voting hours at five locations. This includes the New Hanover CountyBoard of Elections Office, Cape Fear Community CollegesHealth Sciences Building,Carolina Beach Town Hall,Northeast Regional Library, and thePine Valley Library. Remaining early voting hours at these locations include:

Pender County is hosting early voting hours at three locations. This includes thePender County Annexin Hampstead, thePender County Board of Electionsin Burgaw, andCape Fear Community Collegein Hampstead. Remaining early voting hours at these locations include:

On March 3, voters must vote at their registered precinct. Its best to look up your precinct ahead of Election Day. Heres how:

Polls will open on Election Day at 6:30 a.m. and close at 7:30 p.m.

Original post:

Last chance to cast an early ballot before Super Tuesday [Free read] - Port City Daily

Weld makes long-shot bid to unseat Trump – The Daily News of Newburyport

BOSTON Down in the polls, lagging in fundraising and blocked from the ballot in several states, former Republican Gov. Bill Weld isnt giving up on his long-shot bid to dethrone incumbent President Donald Trump in the upcoming GOP primaries.

Weld, 74, of Canton has been crisscrossing the state in the past week, visiting schools, food pantries, coffee shops and pizza parlors in a ground campaign to drum up votes ahead of the GOP primary. Despite the lopsided race, Weld said he is confident about his chances Tuesday when he will be on GOP ballots in several states, including Massachusetts.

Its a long shot, but this is a race that has to be run, Weld said during a visit Wednesday with the North of Boston Media Group editorial board. Donald Trump is an existential threat to the nation.

Weld is not well known nationally but is widely respected among veterans in the Republican establishment, and he has been highly critical of Trumps presidency.

He is a believer in free markets, global trade and the international order. He argues that Trump has abandoned the principles that have guided the GOP since President Ronald Reagan.

They keep calling me the RINO (Republican in name only), but Trump is the real RINO, Weld said. He has turned the Republican Party into his own personal cult.

On the campaign trail, Weld has talked about putting a price on carbon emissions to address climate change, reducing the deficit and restoring American diplomacy.

Generally recognized

Weld was first elected governor in 1990, defeating a conservative Democratic candidate, and hes been called one of Massachusetts most popular governors in recent history. In 1994, voters re-elected him by the widest margin for the governors office in state history, nearly 71%.

Two years after that, he mounted a campaign to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. John Kerry but fell short. He left the governors office a year later when President Bill Clinton named him U.S. ambassador to Mexico.

Weld hasnt strayed far from the political stage in the years since he ran for governor of New York in 2005 and 2006. Four years ago, he ran on the Libertarian Partys presidential ticket as former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnsons running mate. They received about 4.5 million votes, or a little more than 3% of the national popular vote.

Next week, Welds name will appear on the statewide Republican primary ballot as a challenger to Trump but only because Secretary of State Bill Galvin, a Democrat, put it there.

Last year, when Weld declared his intention to run against Trump, state Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons compared him to the infamous traitor Benedict Arnold.

Lyons cited Welds endorsement of President Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain for president in the 2008 elections and his race as the Libertarian vice presidential candidate in 2016.

State law allows the states top election official to unilaterally put a candidate on the primary ballot if the candidate is generally advocated or recognized a low bar for a former Republican governor.

Weld says the effort to keep him off the ballot in his home state is part of a national strategy by the Trump campaign to crush potential challengers.

Hes been kept off the ballot in seven states, including this weekends contest in South Carolina, after GOP officials there canceled the primary and endorsed Trumps re-election.

GOP officials in those states have pointed out that incumbent presidents seeking re-election have a long history of canceling primaries and note that doing so saves money.

Small budget

Weld hasnt exactly presented a serious challenge to Trump so far. He received about 9% of the vote in New Hampshires first-in-the-nation primary. He picked up one GOP delegate in the Iowa caucuses, where he got 426 votes.

His campaign hasnt been helped by Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican who has described Weld as a political mentor. Baker, who isnt a fan of Trump, has been tight-lipped about who he is supporting in the presidential race.

Weld said he understands Bakers reticence. Getting involved could backfire on the state, he said, if Trump seeks revenge.

It would hurt the commonwealth because federal funding would suddenly disappear, he said.

Weld has also struggled with fundraising. He has reported about $1.8 million in contributions since he entered the race, including a $250,000 personal loan.

As of Jan. 31, he only had about $18,000 left in his campaign account.

By comparison, the Republican National Committee and Trumps campaign have raised more than $525 million since January 2019 between two joint-fundraising committees.

Nonfactor

Local Republican officials say support for Trump is strong in Massachusetts and they shrug off suggestions that Weld has any chances of unseating the president, despite his popularity as governor.

Republican voters are happy with the way the economy is going and with the direction of the country, said Amy Carnevale, chairwoman of the Marblehead Republican Town Committee and a delegate for Trump at the Republican National Convention. The fact that voters turned out in record numbers in New Hampshire for the president is a clear indication of the enthusiasm.

Carnevale called Weld a nonfactor whose flirtations with other parties, not to mention Democrats, have squandered any good will he once had with GOP voters.

Most Republicans have written him off as a serious candidate, she said. I dont think hell get much support.

Rep. Lenny Mirra, a West Newbury Republican, voted for Weld as governor and reached across the isle to vote for the Johnson/Weld ticket in 2016, but said hes staying out of the current presidential race.

He said the former governor still has political chops but suggests his decision to run as a Libertarian hurt his support among conservative Republican voters.

He was enormously popular as governor, and I voted for him every time he ran, Mirra said. But I just dont see a lot of support for him this time around.

Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Groups newspapers and websites.

Read more:

Weld makes long-shot bid to unseat Trump - The Daily News of Newburyport

ICYMI: Few local races as filings for Aug. 4 primary open this week – Leader Publications

After the first day of filings for the Aug. 4 primary election, there was almost no competition for Jefferson County offices. But, things were more interesting at the state and federal levels.

Several primary races emerged for state legislative seats, and three Jefferson Countians filed for congressional seats.

Filings opened Tuesday, and will close at 5 p.m. Tuesday, March 31. Candidates in the primary will vie for their political partys nomination for whatever office theyre seeking.

Winners of primary elections will face off in the Nov. 3 general election, when the U.S. presidential election also will be held.

Candidates for county offices file at the Jefferson County Administration Center, 729 Maple St., in Hillsboro, while candidates for state offices file in Jefferson City.

According to information provided by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, candidates who filed the first day were given a random number to determine the order their names will appear on the ballot. After the first day, candidates are placed on the ballot in the order of their filing.

Filings for local seats as of 5 p.m. Tuesday are listed below, with incumbents marked with an (I).

Jefferson County Council

District 2 Republican Renee Reuter, Imperial (I).

District 4 Republican Charles Groeteke, Barnhart (I).

District 6 No filings by the end of business Tuesday. Republican Dan Stallman is the incumbent.

For 2020, even-numbered districts are up for election. Elections for districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 will be held in 2022.

Assessor Republican Bob Boyer, Arnold (I).

Public Administrator Republican Steve Farmer, Imperial (I).

Sheriff Republican Dave Marshak (I), Festus.

Treasurer Republican Paula Wagner, Festus (I).

Circuit Judge

Division 2 Republican Darrell Missey, Fenton (I).

State representative

District 97 Republican Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Arnold (I).

District 111 Republican Shane Roden, Cedar Hill (I), Democrat Daniel (Vern) Cherry, Dittmer.

District 112 Republican Rob Vescovo, Arnold (I), Republican Chad Bicknell, Arnold.

District 113 Republican Dan Shaul, Imperial (I), Democrat Terry Burgess, Barnhart.

District 114 Republican Becky Ruth, Festus (I).

District 115 Republicans Cyndi Buchheit-Courtway, Festus, Marvin Fricke, De Soto, Ryan Jones, De Soto. Incumbent Elaine Gannon, R-De Soto, is term-limited.

District 118 Republican Mike McGirl, Potosi (I).

State Senate

District 3 Republicans Kent Scism, Farmington, Joshua Barrett, Fredericktown. The seat was vacated by Gary Romine, R-Farmington, who was appointed to the State Tax Commission.

U.S. House of Representatives

District 2 Republican Ann Wagner, Ballwin (I); Democrat Jill Schupp, St. Louis; Libertarian Martin Schulte, Ballwin.

District 3 Republicans Adela Wisdom, Williamsburg, Brandon Wilkinson, Cedar Hill; Democrats Megan Rezabek, Imperial, Dennis Oglesby, Warrenton; Libertarian Leonard J. Steinman II, Jefferson City. Incumbent Republican Blaine Luetkemeyer, St. Elizabeth, had not filed by end of business on Tuesday.

District 8 Republican Jason Smith, Salem (I); Democrat Kathy Ellis, Festus.

Committee positions

A committeeman and a committeewoman are elected for political parties in each township in the county. Listed below are those who had filed by 5 p.m. Tuesday.

REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

Central Township committeeman: John R. Gebel (I).

Central Township committeewoman: Rebecca Leonard (I).

Imperial Township committeeman: Jim Berberich (I), Steve Farmer.

Imperial Township committeewoman: Diane Berberich (I).

Joachim Township committeeman: George Bob Engelbach (I).

Joachim Township committeewoman: Janet Engelbach (I).

Meramec Township committeewoman: Connie Combs.

Plattin Township committeeman: David B. Courtway (I).

Rock Township committeeman: Bill Alter (I), Alan Leaderbrand.

Rock Township committeewoman: Angela Alter-Wren (I).

Windsor Township committeeman: David Day (I).

Windsor Township committeewoman: Whendy Moore, Sharon Swan.

DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE

Imperial Township committeewoman: Fran Newkirk (I).

Read the original post:

ICYMI: Few local races as filings for Aug. 4 primary open this week - Leader Publications

Who Will Build the Road to Serfdom? – Splice Today

Its frustrating, if you were alive during part of the 20th century,to see humanity circle back around to the century-old argument between socialism and fascism, both stupid philosophies seemingly discredited by the most memorable,horrible experiences of that centurybut in its first few decades passionately defended by street-fighting gangs of young ideologues on German streets.

How did thisrecurrencehappen? Its like were walkinga philosophical Mobius stripor worse, since we barely seem to be moving, sitting in a Mobius chair somewhere beyond time and space, surveying 100years of pointless crisis and conflict yielding no real learning.

One thing Ive learned, though, is that if yougive government an inch, itlltake a mile, sometimes a mile of paved road. As Ive lamented before, ironically, both the left and elements of the far right (includingsome purporting to be my fellow anarcho-capitalist libertarians) point to the expense of road maintenance as justificationfor government taking on other duties.

Who will buildthe roads? ask the leftistsas if the private sector doesnt get that task donewith great frequencywhile some who (inaccurately, I think) call themselves anarcho-capitalists ask, Shouldnt we be able to stop people at the border if the alternative is them using roads at the expense of innocent taxpayers?as if theres no way to get people to pay for roads (hint: tolls) besides deploying fascistic border patrols with the legal authority toharass everyone within 100 milesof the border in numerous ways that (obviously) go far beyond defraying road-maintenance expenses.

Given the obvious and very long history of governments mission creep whenever it can find an excuse to act, whether byadding a welfare agency or a police function, the last thing we should do is come up with more rationales for its existence, especially those of us claiming to be libertarians of some sort.

I was thus alarmed to see an editor at the Mises Institute, Ryan McMaken, taking the borders-are-libertarian argument one perverse step farther, arguing that whats good for the U.S. taxpayer (mainly because it excludesuntaxedMexicans from roads, in theory)is in fact good for the taxpayers ofevery individual U.S. state, sowhy not have 50enforceable borders?

If Brexit makes England freer than EU membershipdoes, and over time theresreason to believe individual European countries are likely less prone to impose crazy regulations than would be a Brussels super-state, goes the argument, you can hardly tell New Jersey it has no right to enforce its border against possibly untaxed interlopers from Pennsylvania or New York. A single small state such as Jersey might even be less intrusive and wide-ranging in its entry requirements than the enforcers at a big national border tend to be. And if not, you can always go around it more easily than you can the country as a whole. So, a newly-hardened New Jersey border could be the key to fostering freedom!

But everything we know about the history of government means we must at least consider the obvious ways this plan might go wrong, and an honest reminder how uglyand burdensomeenforcement is at the national border is a good place to start. They dont just check for violent criminals and invading armies there, after allwhich in principle, I think virtually everyone would consider reasonable, absent the complete dissolution of nationsbutinsteaduse the national border as both an excuse and an opportunity to mold trade, population demographics, drug use patterns, internal employment trends, and more.

Nowadays, given the rights near-total obsession with immigration, one must assure them that one is not dismissing any of the thingsin that list as unimportantbut one is, iflibertarian, insisting that the important things are the last things one should want controlled by government. You insist on a border? Keep it simple, mostly-porous, and limited in its functions, more or less like government itself, if wemust have one at all (for now).

By contrast, I suppose the border-lovers should look with a certain amount of admiration at the (understandably) more-policed-than-average city boundaries of New York. Its almost like paying to enter Disney World driving into this place, and rest assured youre constantly being surveilled in the processmusic to the border-enforcers ears, I suppose. But consider the possibility that its no coincidence this city spawned authoritarians such as (Brooklyn-born) Bernie Sanders and a man who recently endorsed him, his fellow communist Bill de Blasio.

Occasionally, circumstances will make a border or even a siege mentality a necessity, but its hardly something torevel in. Given the tendency of the authoritarian elements of any political plan to come to fruition while the libertarian elements get perpetually delayed, I think its a safe bet 50hardened state bordersif put in placebeforethe welcome day the federal government ceases to exist, and especially if put in place by the federal government itself rather than, say, fiercely freedom-loving state-by-state secessionistswould just yield astill-vastnation at first annoyed and in time inured to constant checkpoints alongonesslowedtrek across what wouldstill be the United States of America, with most of its federal regulations still intact.

(By contrast, long story short, a Brexited UK can fairly easily resume thinking of itself as and behavinglike an independent countrysome of these distinctions must be more a matter of contingent history than pure philosophical idealism.)

Constant government checkpointscant be what a reasonable-approximation-of-liberty (or private property) looks like, any more than a ring ofgovernmentcops around every town or block is (and New York has come close to trying that, too, given all the barricades put up in the Bronx at certain hours).In theory,yes,that system mighteventuallyfortuitously decay into mere parcels of private propertytheultimate win for libertarianismbut you know damn well it might more easily decay into a system in which you must constantly present your papers to go across town, one morelayer of very palpable tyranny.

Most of that will sound rather far-off and speculative, but one crude,practical litmus test right now for separating the libertarians-in-spiritfrom the mereborder-lovers/Trumpers-in-spiritis seeing how people react to the news of Greyhoundannouncing it will not comply with searches of its vehicles by immigration agents who do not have warrants. The same people aghast at the independent-mindedness of sanctuary citieswill want Greyhound punished, I suppose, but since I still remember the days when non-leftists preferred capitalist enterprises and individual rights to latitude for government goons, I say: Go, Greyhound!

Todd Seavey is the author ofLibertarianism for Beginnersand is on Twitter at@ToddSeavey.

See the original post here:

Who Will Build the Road to Serfdom? - Splice Today

How New Is the Oren Cass Approach? – National Review

(Pixabay)The public-policy expert has some interesting ideas. But they arent necessarily new ones.

Oren Cass, formerly a domestic-policy adviser to the 2012 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has launched a new organization, American Compass. Cass told the Washington Post that its goal is to think about what the post-Trump right-of-center is going to be. This debate is ongoing; Casss contributions to it will be familiar to readers of National Review.

Yet some of Casss immediate claims are worth questioning. Cass bemoans a purported domination of conservatism and the Republican Party by a market fundamentalism in many cases, held entirely in good faith; in some cases, more as a matter of political convenience. He also accuses conservatives of having for decades outsourced their economic thinking to libertarians such that libertarianism is now part of the prevailing orthodoxy (along with a progressive economics that is, he says, its mirror image).

The notion that libertarians have largely controlled the Right probably comes as a surprise to libertarians, who have watched helplessly over the past few decades as government has grown, debt and deficits have expanded, and the Federal Register accrues more pages (even as one of the consistent priorities of what Cass calls the inchoate earthquake of the Trump administration has been a concerted effort to fight this last trend).

Market fundamentalism, then, is a curious choice of villain. Few could survey the actual policy achievements of elected Republicans over the past few decades and claim they reflect that wholesale. Republicans during George W. Bushs presidency may have cut taxes, but they also increased spending (as have Trump-era Republicans), added a new federal agency, expanded an existing federal entitlement, and increased federal involvement in education. Bush himself proclaimed that we have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move, imposed unilateral tariffs (as President Trump has done), and spearheaded the TARP bailout of the financial industry, sacrificing free-market principles to save the free-market system, in his words.

President George H. W. Bush famously raised taxes and was never fully on board with what he had called President Reagans voodoo economics. The degree to which Reagan himself was on board with what became known as Reaganomics is the subject of some debate, largely due to his utility as a totem for both sides of this argument. But he did intervene in the economy specifically in behalf of Harley-Davidson. And libertarian economics had very little sway in the actual policy of the Republican Party before Reagan. If Casss dispute is instead with conservative rhetoric irrespective of its purported practitioners actions, then he ought to make that clear. (Few would contest that many elected Republicans have been hypocrites in this regard.)

Some of the participants on Casss side of this argument, which is ongoing, sometimes act as though the very idea of government involvement in the economy were both brand new and some incredible panacea for our ills. The truth, toward which Cass gestures when he writes that he seeks to reassert ideas like these [that he proposes] for a conservative coalition that once understood them intuitively, is that skepticism of the free market has a long history within the conservative tradition. Before neoconservative became a dirty word, neoconservatives, such as Irving Kristol, were offering Two Cheers for Capitalism. As far back as 1957, National Review itself dissented from the market fundamentalism of Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, via Whittaker Chamberss famous review. Just a decade ago, there were the reformocons, who sounded a lot like Cass and company do now in arguing for modest federal support for families and middle-income earners. When these groups made arguments in public, John Galt did not take over the transmission, nor did some Cato Institute grandee keep them from making their points. What Cass seeks to reassert never really left, even if its perceived relative strength has waxed and waned.

This may all seem like angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. Indeed, much of this debate has the character of a think-tank panel that has spilled out into the real world (Casss specific chosen antagonist in his National Review article is a vice president of the Heritage Foundation). But it is easier to act as though we simply havent tried certain things instead of admitting that we have tried some, and that sometimes they do work, but sometimes they dont. Cass would have a better case that our existing government policy has been inadequate than that we do not have one at all. And why has it been inadequate? Libertarian-leaning economists have had plenty to say about that: in public choice (Buchanan), the distribution of economic information (Hayek), monetary theory (Friedman), and more.

I do not invoke the celebrated insights of some libertarians merely to reject the very idea that the government has a place in the modern economy. I happen to agree with the argument Cass makes in his book The Once and Future Worker that it is foolish to devote immense federal resources to promoting higher education while leaving all other post-high-school paths to a hodgepodge of mostly state-based and private programs. Yet federal economic intervention is hardly the herald of something entirely new, either in the economy as a whole or on the right. A compass can help you find your way, but its even more useful if you know where you already are.

Read the original post:

How New Is the Oren Cass Approach? - National Review

Have Trump’s economic decisions actually boosted the US? – The Libertarian Republic

No matter where you are in the world, the topic of Donald Trump and his impulsive phrases and decision are a divisive topic. It must be said that the prediction by those fearing that the U.S President was going to have the same fiery approach and eventually bring the whole country down with his has turned out to be largely untrue. But not necessarily because Trump has changed since his original campaign, but mostly because there are complex mechanisms at work in the white house that wont allow for complete chaos, and for one person to be fully in charge of everything. Trump has made many drastic changes to the U.S economy but has any of it actually paid off?

According to the president himself, the U.S economy is currently on historic high and is stronger than it has ever been. And of course, there are many who continue to challenge Trumps claim and amidst the influx of different opinions and contradictory facts it has become difficult to trust anyone outlet. Trumps entire political campaign and his actions as an already chosen president, has always been focused on the pro=growth attitude that prioritized this trend over many more, arguably more important topics. The main issue that most democrats have with Trump is that even though he is focused on growth, his policies often offer the gains for the price that most democrats and their supporters arent willing to pay. So when Trump says that his policies have actually helped the U.S to get its economy to where it was at an all-time high, he is definitely not lying. Although the methods used to get there can be quite controversial and often the main reason why the benefits of economic growth often get swept under the rug in the name of the sacrifices made for the said growth.

To claim that the U.S economy is the strongest it has ever been is a simple exaggeration that the historic data will dispute in no time, but it has definitely been doing well.

America does not like to admit it but its never-ending feud with China has affected the currency market. Just recently the president has set out to make some changes that would make up for the damages caused by the trade war and wants to help cryptocurrency bounce back to its better days. Even though the damages have not been all that harsh and China definitely has it much worse, the forex trading has definitely been more unpredictable for the U.S citizens and for those who trade in USD. This is why most trusted brokers in the USA have managed to keep the equilibrium as much as possible, but its difficult to remain unfazed when the entire world is feeling the effects of the trade war on their currencies and their economic lives as well. Trump is now trying to improve the situation by introducing new regulations. The new rule will allow Washington to levy tariffs on countries that are undervaluing the U.S currency, We dont know much about what criteria the white house will use to determine whether some countries qualify as underminers but this new rule has already raised some question about whether it will actually do some good or damage the currency further.

The stock market has actually been doing exceptionally well, meaning that Dow Jones Industrial Average has never been this high before. Coronavirus outbreak has changed the set up a bit but this doesnt take away from the fact that the President has improved the stock market situation by a lot. Trump has been consistently voicing his concern with the taxes for corporations and has not only cut down on the taxes but also implemented a much more U.S based approach to the stock market which has definitely paid off. This is one of those few cases where the success of his policies cant be argued against, and while for many this move is interpreted as Trump ensuring that the big and powerful companies keep growing and increasing their income, something that might not necessarily be the priority for the majority of the U.S population but the fact is that the stock market has greatly benefited from it and has allowed for more stability. But the complicated relationship with China has also managed to tempt with that even though the U.S does not want to admit that they are affected by their tensions with China.

The epicenter of all these developments and setbacks is tied to the Trade War. The dispute that has affected the entire world and has changed the setup of the world economy. What is worse is that two countries cant seem to communicate well enough to actually bring an end to this dispute that actually is not benefiting anyone all that much, even though the U.S and specifically Donald Trump would have you believe that it is largely unaffected by it. It is true that the country most affected by it is China, Huawei specifically. The telecommunications giant was forced to completely rethink their business model after the ban from the U.S and has since then tried to stay afloat and offer their services and products to other powerful countries While after the two years the company has managed to live in a new reality it is still an unnecessary one.

The two countries have tried to meet up and find a solution that would please everyone but the problem with having China and the U.S represented in the same room means that both want to be superior and dont want to seem weak under any circumstances.

The U.S has managed to find alternatives, mostly from the local productions and close partners but as both players are growing tired of endless talks and inconclusive discussions the pressure from the world to end this conflict is growing. Since the U.S, Trump specifically has proven that the can sustain the U.S economy without help from other major countries there might be higher chances of collaborative work since China is also growing tired of the burden of the bans and increased taxes.

Here is the original post:

Have Trump's economic decisions actually boosted the US? - The Libertarian Republic

Elizabeth Warren Is Here To Be Queen of the Ashes – Reason

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) is a fan of Game of Thrones' heroine-turned-villain Daenerys Targaryen, and the presidential candidate did her best impression of the Dragon Queen during Wednesday night's Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas.

Warren came out swinging at the opening bell. She interrupted New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's first response with an absolute slobber-knocker.

She was just getting started. She would torch Bloomberg again and again during the two hour debateincluding one particularly effective broadside on Bloomberg's history of requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements about sexual harassment, which Warren said effectively silences women who have been subjected to workplace misogyny.

But she saved plenty of fire for the rest of the field too. She cremated former Vice President Joe Biden for having the audacity to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) to pass legislation. She burned Pete Buttigieg for daring to offer an alternative to universal government-run health care, which he calls "Medicare for all who want it." Warren accused him of having nothing more than "a slogan that was thought up by his consultants." Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DMinn.), with whom Warren had previously shared some debate state camaraderie, took a turn in the barrel for having a health care plan that wasnot long enough, I guess?

Some of those attacks were more legitimate than others. (Realistically, the fact that Biden had good relationships with some Republican senators was a benefit for the Obama administration, as Warren would quickly discover if she managed to win the White House.) Still, it was a fiery and energetic performance from a candidate who seems to know she has nothing to lose at this point. The fundraising boost will help too.

Once Warren threw the first punch, everyone wanted a piece of the action. Buttigieg and Klobuchar sniped at one another throughout the night. Bloomberg torched Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.) for being a socialist who owns three houses. Even Biden showed a bit of life!

Bloomberg had the worst night of all. One that mightif debates matter, and I'm not sure they doraise serious questions about his viability going forward. "If the argument for Bloomberg's candidacy is that he's more electable than Sanders and Warrenand more energetic than Bidenthen that argument has suffered a significant setback. Maybe a fatal one," offers Reason's Robby Soave.

Even when he wasn't under attack from Warren and the other candidates, Bloomberg suffered from being "a stiff, incompetent political performer with a record in office that's so-so at best and who is aware that what seem to be his authentic policy views are too politically toxic to run on," as Vox's Matt Yglesias put it.

Bloomberg's presence on the stage likely helped Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.), who would otherwise have drawn the majority of the other candidates' fire after winning (or nearly winning, depending on how you count Iowa's results) the first two states. It's becoming clear that Sanders is the frontrunner now, but the bigger question is whether he can get an outright majority of the delegates. When asked last night, he was the only candidate on stage to say that a candidate with the plurality of the delegatesthat is, the largest pile but not an outright majorityshould be the nominee. Everyone else is now angling for a brokered convention, an outcome that the forecasters at FiveThirtyEight say is the most likely outcome of the race right now.

That brings us back to Warren. Her "Dracarys" approach to last night's debate could be seen as a way to say "if I can't win the nomination, no one will"or maybe "let's take this all the way to Milwaukee." On the other hand, it was notable that she didn't go after Sanders with the same venom she brought for the others. Might that be a sign that she's playing fullback for Sanders?

Regardless, Wednesday's debate was evidence that the Democratic presidential race has entered a new, more dramatic phase. One that will last for (checks calendar) a whole six days before we get to do this all over again.

"For secular libertarians, human dignity is taken as a given, and freedom flows from that. Catholic libertarians go one step further, believing our freedom comes from our dignitybut our dignity and our freedom come from God," writesReason's managing editor, Stephanie Slade, in a Libertarianism.org piece exploring the overlapand the occasional tensionbetween her Catholic faith and her belief in the merits of limited government.

Not here for theology? Do yourself a favor and read far enough to get to Pope Leo XIII's elegantly devastating critique of socialism.

Sure, Philadelphia's "soda tax" is a total disaster for businesses and consumers, but at least it's providing revenue for important public programs, right?

Wrong.

See the rest here:

Elizabeth Warren Is Here To Be Queen of the Ashes - Reason

Keep calm. The race to become the Democratic nominee for president is far from over. | Editorial – Tampa Bay Times

As the Democratic presidential candidates prepare to debate Tuesday night in Charleston, S.C., voters in Florida should pay heed to the numbers and remember what they do and dont mean. Only three small states have voted so far, and the total votes cast in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada come nowhere near the combined population of just Tampa and St. Petersburg. Those who either welcome or fear that Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, could become the Democratic nominee should keep the tiny scale of those numbers in mind. The best thing for Florida Democrats to do right now is keep paying attention and wait to vote until the picture becomes clearerand the numbers become big enough to be meaningful. The South Carolina primary is Saturday, and Democrats in 14 states, including California and Texas, vote on March 3.

Take a deep breath. Sanders vote totals so far are so small that they are eclipsed by the number of votes Hillary Clinton got just in Pinellas County in the 2016 general election, and she lost the countyand the electionto President Donald Trump. The other four top vote-gettersformer South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Bidenhave only 15,000 more votes combined than the number of registered Democrats in Hillsborough County. And former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has not been on the ballot anywhere yet.

Here are the combined total votes each candidate received in the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary and the Nevada caucus.

The numbers dont really become big enough to begin to clear the landscape until Super Tuesday, March 3, when the outcomes will award more than a third of all delegates for the Democratic National Convention. That day is also the first time Bloomberg will appear on the ballot.

As Florida Democrats watch and wait, after Saturdays South Carolina primary they would do well to remember Winston Churchills words after the first British land victory in 1942 in World War II: Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Editorials are the institutional voice of the Tampa Bay Times. The members of the Editorial Board are Times Chairman and CEO Paul Tash, Editor of Editorials Tim Nickens, and editorial writers Elizabeth Djinis, John Hill and Jim Verhulst. Follow @TBTimes_Opinion on Twitter for more opinion news.

Read more:

Keep calm. The race to become the Democratic nominee for president is far from over. | Editorial - Tampa Bay Times

Judicial swamp looking to stymie the ‘Trump Revolution’ – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Dare we call it the Trump Revolution? We call the presidency of Ronald Reagan the Reagan Revolution. Well, consider what Donald Trump has achieved in but three years.

He has revived the economy with ample growth, historic low levels of unemployment and efficiencies in the economy thanks to the removal of unnecessary stultifying regulations. He promises more if re-elected. He has assured international peace and stability. Becoming a prominent terrorist is no longer a smart career choice. Longevity can be problematic. And the president has assured a judicial system stocked with men and women who really believe in the rule of law. Furthermore, he has brought us two U.S. Supreme Court Justices who will abide by the U.S. Constitution. If he has four more years in the White House, he will bring us more.

Yet apparently our countrys intelligence community was out to put the clamps on Mr. Trump even before he was elected. Slowly, we are finding out that, for instance, FISA warrants included warrants that were illegal. We are finding out that these agencies were eavesdropping on Mr. Trump and his aides. Conservatives always defended the CIA and FBI against career civil libertarians. Now, we are finding out that these agencies were used against the president and his people. What did the Trumpians do to antagonize the intelligence community?

Do the heads of these agencies really think that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin? I have not seen the evidence. A two-year investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller could not find the evidence either. So let us come up with the evidence that will convince Americans that, as John Brennan, formerly of the CIA, has said, Mr. Trumps behavior was treasonous. Treasonous? The evidence?

Possibly the civil libertarians have been right about the threat the intelligence agencies pose to ordinary Americans civil liberties, but now those civil libertarians have fallen strangely silent. Why are they not aroused by the treatment of Gen. Michael Flynn, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos? Does one have to be a communist to gain their support? The silence of the civil libertarians is but one of the many oddities of this latest chapter in American history.

Now what Mr. Trump has dubbed the swamp is erupting with more poison. Just the other day we learned that the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference is planning to bar judges from belonging to the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is a scholarly group of law students, law professors and lawyers whose interest in the law leads them to hold seminars, lectures and other such events that revolve around the law. It has chapters at law schools all over the country. Its members are mainly conservative and libertarian, but it is open to all comers and there are even a few adventurous liberals.

Oh yes, and one thing more. Until recently the Federalist Society was headed by Leonard Leo, a leading conservative thinker and activist. Mr. Leo has rightfully taken a leave of absence from the Federalist Society perhaps because he is a leading figure on the team of advisers who have helped the president pick his nominees to the courts. That the president has had so many of his nominees accepted is proof of how high the Federalist Societys standards are. The Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference objects supposedly that the Federalist Society is too political. What about the Womens Christian Temperance Union? If the WCTU suggested nominees to the Trump administration, would the Committee on Codes of Conduct object that the abstemious ladies are too political? Is there not a guarantee of freedom of association in the First Amendment? Do not the liberals have an organization equivalent to the Federalist Society?

As a matter of fact, they do. It is called the American Constitution Society. Moreover, it is a highly political organization, as might be expected from liberals. What organization of liberals is not highly political? It takes political positions, counsels on judicial appointments and files amicus briefs. The Federalist Society follows none of these practices.

Now the clever minds of the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference has published a bull pronouncing that judges be barred from both organizations. I have a better idea. Let the First Amendments right to free association be affirmed, and let judges be members of either society or of both societies. Better yet, encourage judges to join the Womens Christian Temperance Union. It is an admirable organization that deserves a comeback, especially in light of the spreading legalization of marijuana.

Now let us get on with the Trump Revolution.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author most recently of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc.

See the original post here:

Judicial swamp looking to stymie the 'Trump Revolution' - Washington Times

Proud Libertarian to run in upcoming council election – Queensland Times

Ipswich man Anthony Bull has put his hand up to run for Division 2 in this year's historic election.

Mr Bull, a second generation Ipswich resident, works in digital marketing and analytics.

"I went to Redbank Plains State School before moving to Westside Christian College, then I actually enrolled at the University of Queensland at Ipswich before the business element got shut down and moved to St Lucia," he said.

"My history here (Ipswich) also extends to my parents; my dad used to be the president of one of the local soccer clubs. He has a field named after him at Westminster Soccer Club; the Kevin Bull field down in Redbank Plains.

"My mother works in a couple of charities here and my wife is from Ipswich as well."

Mr Bull said he wanted to run for council because he had a passion for politics and believed he could do better than the previous council.

"The previous council was a perfect example of an unchecked government," he said

"I'm a big believer in government transparency and government accountability; that the people who work in government have to answer to the people who voted them in."

Mr Bull has three main focuses if elected to council, which include not only streaming council meetings but having audio transcribed as a way of ensuring accountability.

"The other two issues that my platform is about are ending the gouging of rate payers by looking at some of the policies that were implemented by the previous government," he said.

"Perhaps some of the services we agreed to aren't the best service at the same price.

"The fact that there was corruption makes me think that there are some services there that need to be looked at."

Mr Bull was very open and admitted he hadn't done any specific research as to why he thought rates were higher but has looked at some previous budgets made by council.

He said he also wanted to support business growth, believing that embracing more business would make way for more jobs in the region.

Mr Bull registered with his wife as a group for council election in order to run as a Liberal Democrat because the party is not registered with the Electoral Commission of Queensland.

"The Liberal Democratic Party of Australia is only registered at the federal level at this stage but not at the state level," Mr Bull said.

"I kind of convinced her to run with me, I didn't want to run as an independent," he said.

"I wanted to let my flag fly and who I am is a member of the Liberal Democrats and for that reason I needed her help.

"You can't run as a group with one person and for her she's really helped me out a lot, she's mostly in it to help me out. She was thinking about running but she's mostly here to help me out for sure."

Mr Bull's wife, Jacinta, is registered as a Division 1 candidate but has since decided to change to Division 3.

"We just sort of did some polling and found there was more support in that area we did some research and thought that (Division 3) was a better fit."

Mrs Bull is not taking media interviews regarding her candidacy for Division 3.

See original here:

Proud Libertarian to run in upcoming council election - Queensland Times

John Roberts blocks Rand Paul’s question on whistleblower | TheHill – The Hill

A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.

The question from Paul is expected to name the individual. Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.

Paul indicated to reporters after a closed-door Republican dinner that he was not backing down from trying to ask his question.

Its still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow, the libertarian-leaning senator told reporters as he headed back to the Senate chamber.

Senatorshave been submittingtheir questions to Republican leadership, who were responsible for weeding out duplicative questions.

I dont think that happens, and I guess I would hope that it doesnt, he told reporters.

Excerpt from:

John Roberts blocks Rand Paul's question on whistleblower | TheHill - The Hill

Half the hay by Ground Hog Day – Concord Monitor

Published: 1/30/2020 11:28:45 AM

One day last week, the temperature was close to 60. It felt like spring. The grass seemed greener, and the smell of damp-not-frozen soil was in the air. I took off my jacket when feeding the cattle. It was warm. Alas, two days later, with the icy wind piercing my down jacket, it seemed like 20 below zero. Winter was back. Encouragement is needed and when the cold seems never-ending, here comes Ground Hog Day!

The second day of February marks the midway point between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox. Its when groundhogs supposedly emerge from their burrows, and if the weather is sunny and they are frightened by their shadows, they dive back into their holes, and winter persists for six more weeks. Its a Pennsylvania Dutch superstition. Over the years, Punxsutawney Phil has come to be the celebrity groundhog, and all eyes are on him.

For farmers with critters to feed, Feb. 2 has serious significance in the adage: Half your hay by Ground Hog Day, meaning if youve used more than half your hay, youre probably going to run out.

Ground Hog Day is not only the half-way point for hay-feeding but this year, its also the precursor for our Feb. 11 first-in-the-nation presidential primary. This is the season when the state is flooded with politicians. They show up at farmers markets, on street corners, in grocery stores, and during the 2016 race Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson showed up at our farm: twice. Of course, for each politician, there seem to be hundreds of out-of-state supporters, well-known TV personalities, and camera-people trailing the candidates and seeking local color.

If New Hampshire can upend political wisdom by elevating under-dogs, why cant we also topple Punxsutawney Phils monopoly on predicting the end of winter? Scientific observation does not support Phils findings, which means any animal is qualified to forecast the weather and that the exact day doesnt matter. Theres an opportunity knocking on the barn door.

This year our mini-pig, Tazzy D. Moo, has agreed to challenge Phils role as end-of-winter-predictor by dressing up like a ground hog. This is an opportunity Tazzy has been waiting for her whole life. To honor tradition, she will wear a fashionable ground hog costume, but unlike Phil, who doesnt speak, Tazzy will give a speech. This is New Hampshire, and even if she is a pig, her voice matters. Its hard to know who wants to hear what she has to say, but isnt that true of politicians too?

Stop by the farm on Feb. 1between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. to see Punxy Tazzy at work. Well also have cows to feed; Curious Bleu, the Scottish Highlander steer, to sit on; calves to brush; and marshmallows to roast. Who knows, maybe the news media will be there looking for local color and someone to quote. If so, Tazzy will be ready.

Read more:

Half the hay by Ground Hog Day - Concord Monitor

Will SCOTUS Hearing on Ballot Position Apply to Minor Political Parties? – The Libertarian Republic

Libertarians and other political third-parties will soon find out if fairness in federal courts extends to political third-parties, or is fairness confined to major party candidates. The answer will establish the degree of loyalty each branch of government has to political parties over the Constitution.

On the week of February 10, 2020 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, will hear argument in Jacobson v. Lee. This case is on appeal from a district court ruling that held unconstitutional a Florida statute that granted top ballot position to all candidates of the Governors political party. In Florida there has been a Republican Governor since 1998.

The Democrats argue that granting the top spot on all ballots to Republicans gives them an electoral advantage. Expert evidence at trial established that first listed candidates have gained an average electoral advantage of five percentage points due to ballot position. Since Governor Scott was elected in 2010 by a 1.2% margin and in 2018 Governor DeSantis won with only a 0.4 % margin, ballot position determined the outcome of both races.

In down-ballot races, the effect gives a 3.1% to 5.6% advantage to top spot candidates.

In Jacobson, the lower court found the impact of ballot placement based on the outcome of the last Governors race to be a denial of equal protection and discriminatory because it selects ballot position based solely on party affiliation.

The lower court offers solutions; at least 29 states either rotate or randomize the order of candidate names in general elections to neutralize the effects of position bias. For example, Ohio requires candidate ballot position be rotated from one precinct to another. Hawaii requires candidates be in alphabetical order. Colorado arranges candidate ballot position by lot, however, it undercuts its neutrality by dividing the candidates into two groups: major party and minor party candidates.

Jacobson is important to every minor party. For decades minor parties have fought merely to secure ballot access. A few have gained access in many states, but usually not all states. Now, minor parties have evidence that ballot placement is a critical matter once ballot access is secured.

Rigging elections occurs in many ways, not just intimidation and fake news. Denying fair ballot position also manipulates votes. The impact of these discriminatory actions is to limit the votes received and the fundraising potential of minor parties, while denying attention to their ideas.

Many articles ago, I addressed the monopoly the two major parties have over our political system.

The two major parties manipulate election laws to ensure one of their loyalists almost always wins the election. Controlling who wins directly translates into what laws are enacted, which citizens or corporations receive subsidies, who is taxed more or taxed less, how commerce is regulated and who will judge us should we violate any command.

According to an article in the Daily Kos ,there are 519,682 elected officeholders in the United States. Of this total, the Libertarian Party, in 2017, claims 168 of these officeholders; the Green Party in 2016 held 143 offices, and the Constitution Party holds 12 offices. Many of these positions are non-partisan offices. There are also, at least 26 Independent office holders, including 2 U.S. Senators who caucus with the Democrats, and 26 Democratic Vermont Progressives. A basic calculation places the third-party competitors share of the political market at 0.0006754%; almost zero.

What makes the power of the major parties so baffling is that political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. Political parties are merely groups of individuals who organize to control government. In fact, for the first several years of our Republic, there were no political parties. Moreover, the major parties maintain complete control of the political marketplace against the fact that 57% of Americans believe a third political party is needed, according to a Gallup poll.

Again, I ask: does judicial fairness apply to minor political parties?

It may not, but the ballot position cases offer clear evidence of discriminatory impact on minor parties and open up a new line of attack for minor parties to seek fairer elections and greater voter participation.

A November 1, 2019 report in Ballot Access News illustrates how discriminatory our electoral system is against minor parties. It found [t]he U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear every election law cert. petition presented by a minor party or independent candidate starting in 1992, unless the Republican Party or the Democratic Party was also a party to the same case.

Action

Since Jacobson is only a dispute between the major parties, both having a great stake in the outcome, it is likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court. This gives the minor parties a chance to file Friends of the Courts briefs to educate the court on the plight of minor parties in ballot cases and the impact of discrimination on the voice of voters.

Party affiliation should not guarantee a 3.1% to 5.6% vote advantage to the two major parties; they have legislated themselves too many electoral advantages. Elections are for citizens to elect their representatives, not for political parties to control the nation.

See the original post:

Will SCOTUS Hearing on Ballot Position Apply to Minor Political Parties? - The Libertarian Republic