Daily Archives: July 22, 2017

Libertarian gubernatorial candidate calls for ‘real changes’ – Southernminn.com

Posted: July 22, 2017 at 8:37 am

CEDAR RAPIDS The politics-as-usual approach to state government by Republicans and Democrats is unsustainable and hurting vulnerable Iowans, according to Jake Porter, a Libertarian who is joining the race for governor.

Were having this huge budget crisis, and I dont see other candidates proposing real changes, Porter said Tuesday.

Instead, Statehouse lawmakers and the governor are using the budget as a weapon, according to Porter, who will formally announce his candidacy on The Simon Conway Show on WHO Radio between 4 and 7 p.m. Thursday.

Theyve decided were having a budget crisis, so were going to cut the services people use most, whether its mental health services, sexual abuse hotlines, domestic abuse shelters (or) hearing aids for kids, Porter said.

Theyre not actually going after any of the waste that could easily be cut. Theyre going after the things that are going to hurt the most people, probably as an excuse to raise the sales tax next year.

Porter, 29, a Council Bluffs business consultant long active in the Libertarian Party, previously ran for secretary of state. He thinks his views and priorities are more closely aligned with voters than either the Democratic or Republican platform.

He wants to make medical cannabis available, restore voting rights for felons who have served their time, end corporate welfare, return Medicaid to its pre-privatization status and phase out the state sales tax.

He opposes corporate welfare on libertarian principles. Its wrong, Porter said, to ask Iowans to pay millions of dollars to financially sound corporations. He singled out the Research Activities Credit that refunds tax money to corporations even if they have no tax liability.

Theyve put the tax bill on the smallest Iowans and smallest companies, he said. I dont think the state should favor one business over another.

Porter called turning over Medicaid management to private companies an example of big government cronyism by former Gov. Terry Branstads administration. He would return management responsibility to the Department of Human Services and then make improvements.

The state has messed around for far too long while people who could benefit from medical cannabis have suffered, Porter said. While he would favor legalization of marijuana for recreational use, I dont think the Legislature is going to pass that.

Despite the changes the Legislature has made, current law makes it difficult, nearly impossible, for Iowans who need cannabidiol to get it, he said.

As a Libertarian, Porter said, he would have the advantage of being able to work with and around the major political parties by using the governors bully pulpit to open a dialogue with voters and pressure lawmakers to act on his priorities.

As governor, you can go around and talk about issues and you can pound the issues until (lawmakers) basically have to do something about it, he said.

Porter said his campaign website, jakeporter.org, will go live Thursday afternoon.

Here is the original post:

Libertarian gubernatorial candidate calls for 'real changes' - Southernminn.com

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Libertarian gubernatorial candidate calls for ‘real changes’ – Southernminn.com

The golden, silver rules of animal treatment – Morganton News Herald

Posted: at 8:36 am

In the May Animal Matters article, I talked about why we need to be a role model for our youth. I'll continue that theme in this column.

You have probably heard of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated. Of course, there are many variations of this rule that refer to not judging others, walking in someone elses shoes, not treating others in ways that you would find hurtful, there, by the grace of God go I, and so on. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on people to donate time and money to support the program. Animal rescues also rely on individuals to give of themselves for the greater good/cause of helping the animals. No doubt, individuals who support us are treating others as they want to be treated. Thank you to those who donate time and/or money to support the animals.

REASON works with people from all over the county who call asking for assistance with spaying/neutering, finding homes for puppies/kittens, or asking for help with food for their animals, just to name a few things. If judgements were placed on every person who sought assistance from us or any of the rescues, versus lending a helping hand, where do you think our community would be? Do you think we would have seen a 41 percent decrease in the kill rate of dogs and cats over the past four years? Such progress is made because some of you believe in helping people and some in helping animals. Ultimately, everyone wins.

The Golden Rule probably strikes a chord if you yourself have ever experienced being treated with empathy. When we experience something, we relate to it and tend to be more sensitive to that circumstance. So, if people around us treat others with respect, especially as we are growing up, we are more likely to treat people with respect. What are you teaching those around you? Of course, for anyone in rescue or spay/neuter, its also about the animal. I would dare say we practice the Animal Golden Rule treating the animal as we would want to be treated if we were that animal, or treating the animal as we would want one of our own treated.

A philosopher spoke of the Silver Rule What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others. So, now its not so much a reflection of what has happened to me in my past, but its the nightmare or vision of what could happen. Again, from the animal side of this, I dont want to be chained up so that I cant move and not be able to reach food or water or my house. I dont want to be locked in a car in the heat of summer or the dead of winter. I dont want to be ignored and isolated from the rest of the family. I dont want to be abandoned, abused, forgotten about. As for me, I dont want any of my animals to be treated this way either. What is the lesson I am teaching someone if this is what they see me doing? Some of what I do may be legal, but is it something I would want done to me? If what I am doing does more good than harm, then maybe its right.

The new Burke County Animal Ordinance will go into effect Aug. 1, 2017, and it is 33-pages long and very detailed. Why? Not everyone defines what is hurtful to be same, so we need it spelled out what we should do and what we should not do. It is influenced by Animal Control officers field experiences, complaints filed, and criminal charges. Not everyone follows the Golden or Silver Rule. Some cannot put themselves in someone elses shoes because their own experiences stand in the way. Some cant empathize with an animal because their own lives are overwhelming they cant see the forest for the trees.

Our responsibility is to practice the Golden or Silver Rule every day, teach our youth by our actions toward other living beings what we would want done to us.

Debbie Hawkins is with REASON Inc.

The rest is here:

The golden, silver rules of animal treatment - Morganton News Herald

Posted in Golden Rule | Comments Off on The golden, silver rules of animal treatment – Morganton News Herald

Former NSW Liberal member threatens to ‘tear party apart’ if Warringah motion fails – The Guardian

Posted: at 8:36 am

Trent Zimmerman says all members should approach the NSW Liberal Futures convention prepared to compromise. Photograph: Toby Mann/AAP

A long-time Liberal member has threatened to tear the party apart and push fellow members to Cory Bernardis Australian Conservatives if the Warringah motion for one member-one preselection vote does not succeed this weekend.

The motion will be debated at the NSW Liberal Futures convention in Sydney, an unprecedented event called specifically to discuss the party rules.

The convention will be open to the media to hear Malcolm Turnbull and the NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian, address 1,500 registered members before the convention closes to discuss the contentious rule changes.

John Howard recommended plebiscites following his review of the party after he left office. Turnbull favours more open preselections but has not backed any particular model.

John Ruddick has been campaigning for all members to vote in their local preselections since 2011. He said the only good outcome was the defeat of all motions apart from the Warringah motion.

He labelled attempts by Liberal MPs Julian Leeser and Alex Hawke to broker a compromise as a con. The Leeser/Hawke motions would place eligibility criteria on members such as activity tests and waiting times before being eligible to vote, and would protect sitting members from the new system with a grandfather clause.

Opponents of Warringah say that this would reduce the chance of branch stacking, though no Liberals would talk on the record as it is against party rules. Ruddick is no longer a party member.

If the Hawke/Leeser con-job compromise motions are supported, then I will be joining Cory Bernardis Australian Conservative party on Sunday afternoon and will launch a high-velocity campaign to bring as many Liberal party members as possible to join me, Ruddick told Guardian Australia.

I single-handedly launched the democracy campaign within the NSW Liberal party and I will gladly tear it apart if they explicitly reject simple democratic principles.

The outcome may feed Bernardis plans to cannibalise the Liberal party membership base. While the membership numbers are held secret, Warringah supporters have previously stated the NSW membership is as low as 8,000, though other Liberal sources say the numbers are closer to 12,000.

Bernardi has planned an event in Sydney next week and claims 4,000 paid-up AusCon members in NSW. He is also due to speak to the Roseville branch of the Liberal party next month.

Ruddick, also a conservative, won nearly 40% of the vote when he ran for NSW party president in 2012. He had been threatened with expulsion and suspension for speaking about party matters publicly, before he resigned his membership in 2015 when Turnbull became leader.

Ruddick was one of a number of conservatives who had lunch with Bernardi, the former Liberal senator, last month. They included another key preselection campaigner and conservative, Walter Villatora, who is also Tony Abbotts federal electorate conference president. Abbott has argued for the change since he lost the leadership.

Even if the Warringah motion passes the convention, it has to go to the partys constitutional committee, and also pass the partys state executive, which is controlled by the moderate faction, which remains opposed to full plebiscites. Ruddick says he does not trust the party machinery to expedite the move to plebiscites.

If Warringah only is approved we still have a battle ahead the war of ratification, Ruddick said. The lobbyists are banking on bogging down ratification for years as they have done in the past. I cant disclose strategy at this point but I promise we will win the war of ratification within three months.

The current preselection practice is that branches vote in local delegates, who vote for a candidate from a central pool. In some circumstances, the state executive can use special powers to intervene and change the rules to expedite the process.

NSW is one of only two states that does not have some form of plebiscite for preselection.

The NSW party state executive and its immediate past president, Trent Zimmerman, have long opposed plebiscites, arguing that the current system is appropriate because MPs are local representatives as well as flag bearers for the party.

On Friday, Zimmerman said all members should approach the convention prepared to compromise, which could mean support for either the Leeser or Hawke motions. But it is also possible that the convention could support two motions, such as the Warringah motion and one other compromise motion, if some members vote for both.

The convention is unprecedented in that any member could register to take part and vote. Electronic voting will be used, via smartphones, tablets or laptops, which had caused concern among some quarters of the party, given its ageing demographic.

Original post:

Former NSW Liberal member threatens to 'tear party apart' if Warringah motion fails - The Guardian

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Former NSW Liberal member threatens to ‘tear party apart’ if Warringah motion fails – The Guardian

A byline for Erdoan? Liberal megaphones for illiberal voices | Open … – The Guardian

Posted: at 8:36 am

Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, speaks to a crowd in Ankara during the inauguration on 16 July 2017 of a monument to commemorate the victims of the coup attempt a year earlier. Photograph: AP

Some readers bristled when the Guardian published an article with the byline of Recep Tayyip Erdoan, the president of Turkey. Why had the increasingly authoritarian leader been given space to say online, as the headline put it, Turkey, a year after the attempted coup, is defending democratic values, and in print, Turkey, a year on, has a strong democracy (Opinion, 15 July, page 35)?

A selection of readers reactions:

I was genuinely shocked Apart from the tens of thousands of academics, civil servants and teachers hes imprisoned, he has locked up thousands of journalists and closed down every non-compliant newspaper, TV channel and radio station.

Ive read your own counterbalancing editorial piece on post-coup Turkey published a day later, but this doesnt explain the rationale behind providing media legitimacy to Turkeys de-facto dictatorship.

Running this item shows a depressing lack of judgement, and one I do not expect from the Guardian [T]he actions of the government he represents are universally regarded as a threat to democracy in his country. In running such a story the Guardian can now be accused of aiding the attempt to legitimise the actions of such governments.

I like the Guardian and the way that it offers a different opinion on the world but to actually provide a platform for a man like Erdoan is a step too far. The damage he has done to Turkey and the wider region should preclude him from securing a platform like the Guardian.

I asked the relevant editors about their decision and they replied: It is part of our role to let our readers know what people in power are thinking. Erdoan is the elected president of Turkey and represents one of the most significant countries in the region. Publishing his argument does not in any way legitimise his repression or imply the Guardians endorsement of his actions.

The Guardian, along with the rest of the international media, has in its editorials and reporting of Turkey been relentless in holding Erdoan to account since the coup. In the last couple of months alone we have covered the dismantling of the judiciary, the opposition mobilising for a justice march, the hunger strikes, the prosecution and trials of journalists, and much more.

In recent months we have hosted numerous columns by international and Turkish writers condemning Erdoans autocratic tendencies. We have also published Amnesty Internationals opinion on the crisis in Turkey. Just days before the first anniversary of the attempted coup, we ran an op-ed both online and in print by the head of the opposition, Kemal Kldarolu. It was following this that the Turkish government approached us, arguing that the president should, for balance, be allowed to set out their thinking in the Guardian so readers could hear both sides as they marked the coup anniversary.

Clearly Erdoans crackdown in the last 12 months has been reprehensible but in the piece we published, he raises what is arguably a legitimate point about the numbers of Turks who came out to defend the system against the military. He also used his piece to issue a warning to western governments about the price of not supporting those Turks who stood against the coup and that in news terms justified its inclusion.

I substantially agree with the editors perspective. But not for all the same reasons. In this context a foreign leader with constant media attention and many platforms at command balance is not a weighty factor.

A major international media outlet like the Guardian must try to be a forum where those who wish to be informed can find a range of leading views, including views with which they may vehemently disagree.

Leading views include those of leaders of countries, howsoever they obtained, use or extend their power. What they put on the record under their own names, even the cant, becomes a reference point. The public record has a way of turning on public figures.

For ironists, here is Vladimir Putin in the New York Times in November 1999: Because we value our relations with the United States and care about Americans perception of us, I want to explain our actions in clear terms

And here is Putin in the Washington Post in February 2012: True democracy was not created overnight.

Let political leaders speak too much, not too little or at too few. Let history hear them and judge.

The gradually closing White House briefings, a part-shuttered state department, the erased sections of public agencies websites, the minimalism of sometimes incoherent tweets these are the political communications techniques that trouble me more than authoritarians exploiting abroad the free press that they lack the confidence to permit at home.

Readers can be trusted to weigh the words of a politician like Erdoan, with a record like his before and after the attempted coup, and to reach their own conclusions within the context of the coverage the Guardian and others continue to provide as Turkey and its neighbours convulse.

Go here to read the rest:

A byline for Erdoan? Liberal megaphones for illiberal voices | Open ... - The Guardian

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on A byline for Erdoan? Liberal megaphones for illiberal voices | Open … – The Guardian

Parker: Liberal values are bankrupting us – News Chief

Posted: at 8:36 am

By Star Parker Syndicated columnist

Recently, Gallup published the results of its annual Values and Beliefs poll.

The headline of the report speaks for itself: "Americans Hold Record Liberal Views on Most Moral Issues."

Gallup has been doing this poll since 2001, and the change in public opinion on the moral issues surveyed has been in one direction - more liberal.

Of 19 issues surveyed in this latest poll, responses on 10 are the most liberal since the survey started.

Sixty-three percent say gay/lesbian relations are morally acceptable - up 23 points from the first year the question was asked. Sixty-two percent say having a baby outside of marriage is OK - up 17 points. Unmarried sex, 69 percent - up 16 points. Divorce, 73 percent - up 14 points.

More interesting, and of greater consequence, is what people actually do, rather than what they think. And, not surprisingly, the behavior we observe in our society at large reflects these trends in values.

Hence, the institution of traditional marriage is crumbling, Americans are having fewer children, and, compared with years gone by, the likelihood that children are born out of the framework of marriage has dramatically increased.

Undoubtedly, the liberals in academia, in the media, in politics, see this as good news. After all, doesn't removing the "thou shalt not's" that limit life's options liberate us?

Isn't the idea of freedom supposed to be, according to them, that you have a green light to do whatever you want, as long as you're not hurting someone else?

But here's the rub. How do you measure if you are hurting someone else?

No one lives in a vacuum. We all live in a country, in communities. We are social beings as well as individuals, no matter what your political philosophy happens to be. Everyone's behavior has consequences for others.

For instance, more and more research shows the correlation between the breakdown of the traditional family and poverty.

In 2009, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution published his "success sequence." According to Haskins, someone who completes high school, works full time, and doesn't have children until after marriage has only a 2 percent chance of being poor.

A new study from the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies focuses on millennials - those born between 1980-1984. And this study reaches conclusions similar to those of Haskins.

According to this study, only 3 percent of millennials who have a high school diploma, who are working full time, and who are married before having children are poor. On the other hand, 53 percent of millennials who have not done these three things are poor.

Behavior increasing the likelihood of poverty does have consequences on others. American taxpayers spend almost a trillion dollars a year to help those in poverty, a portion of whom would not be in this situation if they lived their lives differently.

But the same liberals who scream when Republicans look for ways to streamline spending on antipoverty programs like Medicaid, scream just as loudly at any attempt to expose young people to biblical values that teach traditional marriage and chastity outside of marriage.

The percent of American adults that are married dropped from 72 percent in 1960 to 52 percent in 2008. The percentage of our babies born to unmarried women increased from 5 percent in 1960 to 41 percent by 2008.

This occurred against a backdrop of court orders removing all vestiges of religion from our public spaces, beginning with banning school prayer in 1962, and then the legalization of abortion in 1973. In 2015, the Supreme Court redefined marriage.

Losing all recognition that personal and social responsibility matters, that the biblical tradition that existed in the cradle of our national founding is still relevant, is bankrupting us morally and fiscally.

We are long overdue for a new, grand awakening.

Star Parker (contact her at http://www.urbancure.org) is an author and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. She writes for Creators Syndicate.

See the article here:

Parker: Liberal values are bankrupting us - News Chief

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Parker: Liberal values are bankrupting us – News Chief

Commentary: Liberal feminists destroy their own cause by diminishing Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ success – TheBlaze.com

Posted: at 8:36 am

With Fridays appointment of Sarah Huckabee Sanders as the new White House press secretary, its never been more evident that liberal feminists are selecting their Joan of Arcs based on their political slant rather than on the fact that they are women.

If youre sitting there, scratching your head, wondering why a self-proclaimed feminist would attempt to diminish another womans successes, youre not the only one, and there is an answer.

Its called selective feminism, and the concept is exactly what it sounds like: Women who support other women so long as they fit into the mold of what they consider acceptable feminist standards.

From the very moment that Sanders was revealed to be the latestWhite House press secretary for the Trump administration, she faced attacks on her education, her qualifications, and perhaps, worst of all her appearance.

See some choice tweets targeting Sanders for shattering her own glass ceiling.

Even an article written by a Mediaite author decried Sanders success, and chalked it up to well, not much at all.

An excerpt from the article titled How Sarah Sanders and the Women of Trumpland Hurt Women reads:

With the decision to promote Sanders, expect the topic of gender and the Trump administration to surface once again, and with this discussion, expect plenty of tokenism. Expect Sarah Huckabee Sanders to respond to every question about imminent future questions about Trump sexism by lavishing praise on the obviously open-minded, pro-woman boss who entrusted her with this high-level position. And expect Kellyanne [Conway] to bring up something about how women dont care about casual sexism from their president because ISIS and violent crime and jobs, but in either case, expect valid criticisms of Trumps sexism problem to be wholly tuned out.

Dee Dee Myers and Dana Perino two previous White House press secretaries who also happened to be female, and maybe just maybe got the jobs because they are qualified were celebrated, lauded for their groundbreaking work in a mans world.

Sanders, however, seems to have gotten the rougher end of the stick, and because she had the audacity to accept a position that many women in the political arena would give their life for no matter what their political affiliation, shes automatically forced to turn in her feminism card if she even cared to carry one at all.

If conservatives or Republicans said even half of the things about prolific liberal Democrats in power that liberals have said about Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway, and now Sanders over the last six months and more, youd have a liberal lynch mob on your hands.

Feminism isnt selective. Feminism is all-encompassing. Its about supporting all women because if its about supporting all women, its about supporting zero women. Picking and choosing which women should be supported because of their race, age, experience, physical appearance, or political affiliation shouldnt fly with die-hard feminists because that boils down to sexism, elitism, racism, and xenophobia all of the important tenets that the most vocal of feminisms claim to be against.

Is Sanders the best choice for White House press secretary?

Only time will tell, and if shes not, its certainly not because shes a woman. But liberals will likely tell you that theyll tell you that should Sanders be forced out of or resign her post, it was because shes a woman, and in Trumps sexist administration, women can never thrive.

But the excoriation of Sanders based on the fact that she is a conservative, Republican woman in power is worse than liberal feminism at its worst because its not feminism at all.

Read the rest here:

Commentary: Liberal feminists destroy their own cause by diminishing Sarah Huckabee Sanders' success - TheBlaze.com

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Commentary: Liberal feminists destroy their own cause by diminishing Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ success – TheBlaze.com

The coming Republican civil war over the budget resolution, explained – Vox

Posted: at 8:36 am

Quietly, a fight has bubbled up in the ranks of House Republicans, which could derail the centerpiece of President Donald Trumps congressional agenda.

The battle is really about tax reform, but its stage is the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution, which passed out of committee this week with unanimous Republican support.

Behind it all is a clash between Republican leadership and a group of archconservatives who see this moment months before any major tax bill is likely to come before the full House as their best chance to force deep cuts to both tax rates and social welfare spending.

Republicans are unified in their goal to cut taxes, but they are locked in an intraparty struggle of how deeply to cut rates and whether to offset those cuts at all with increased taxation elsewhere. GOP leaders have proposed a tax reform blueprint that would include such an increase to offset lost revenue from rate cuts and keep the budget deficit from growing.

The conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus say that proposal is dead on arrival, and they are pushing House Speaker Paul Ryan to adopt an alternative: one that relies on draconian welfare spending cuts and incredibly optimistic economic growth projections in order to avoid swelling the deficit. Ryan has resisted their efforts, particularly their proposed spending cuts.

Rather than stage that fight this fall, when the White House and conservative leaders will undoubtedly ramp up the pressure to pass a tax bill, the Freedom Caucus members have chosen to make their tax stand over the budget resolution a nonbinding government spending guideline that both chambers have to pass if they want to circumvent the threat of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate on tax reform.

GOP leaders are refusing to back down from a resolution that Freedom Caucus members warn would force a vote on a smaller batch of tax and spending cuts in the fall. But without the Freedom Caucus on board, the resolution will fail a floor vote which is why caucus members have identified the budget resolution as their best leverage to get what they want on tax reform, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) said.

And so the budget resolution has become a proxy war, while President Trumps attention is still on health care in the Senate.

It is the same game of chicken, with the same key players that nearly killed the House health care bill in March. If neither faction blinks, Republicans, in control of the House, Senate, and White House will be stuck in a stalemate: No budget resolution means no tax reform.

For now, at least, Freedom Caucus members are saying theyre willing to take that chance.

At the beginning of this year, thinking only Senate Democrats with the power of a filibuster would stop them from repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes, Republican leadership devised a plan to bypass Democrats altogether: They would tie their major agenda items to the budget through budget reconciliation, a bill that can impact spending, revenue, or the debt ceiling, with only a party line vote in the Senate.

Its a process President Bill Clinton used to pass welfare reform in 1996 and President George W. Bush used to pass tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Its how President Barack Obama saw several budgetary amendments to the Affordable Care Act through. Republicans also attempted to use budget reconciliation to try to pass an Obamacare repeal bill in the Senate.

Budget reconciliation requires passing a budget resolution, forcing Republicans to thread the needle between members competing spending priorities and the larger contingents of tax cutters, deficit hawks, and defense hawks. This is hard, and because budget resolutions dont actually fund the government or go to the presidents desk, and spending bills can be done without them, its a step thats often skipped.

But this year Republicans have tied their hands. The budget resolution unlocks a path to tax reform, and depending on how the instructions for budget reconciliation are written in, it can also dictate how Republican actually implement tax cuts.

In budget reconciliation, each committee is instructed how much savings they must produce in order to pass a reconciliation bill.

Committees can only find these savings through mandatory spending which most notably covers programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs like cash assistance and food stamps. But there are some limitations: Trump has repeatedly promised Medicare wouldnt be touched under his presidency, and per reconciliation rules, Social Security funding cannot be cut.

If these reconciliation instructions are written strictly in the budget resolution, the level of required mandatory savings could influence how Republicans can approach tax reform specifically how they pay for their tax cuts.

In any scenario, Republicans are relying on projections of increased economic growth from tax cuts to offset the revenue losses from those cuts. But under most projections, growth alone wont be enough to offset the full losses from the deepest cuts Republicans have discussed, including a drop in the corporate rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Ryan and the tax-focused Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) are adamant about executing a revenue neutral tax plan. To do that, they have floated implementing a border adjustment tax, which would tax foreign imports and exempt exports, raising money because the US currently imports more than it exports. Some analysts have projected that plan would be revenue-neutral after economic growth is factored in.

Theres a problem, though: So many Republican lawmakers and major conservative donors hate the border adjustment idea that it appears to have no chance of passing the House.

You are adding a whole new tax and revenue stream on the economy and not getting rid of another one that is always dangerous because it is just one more tax that could go up over time, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, said of the BAT. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I think this is problematic.

Theres no need for revenue neutrality with tax reform, Jordan and the Freedom Caucus argue, in an attempt to make the case that these corporate tax rates would lead to what looks like extremely unrealistic GDP growth. But its unlikely Republicans will be able to convince members to vote for tax reform that removes the BAT without an alternative; the possibility of blowing out the deficit wont gain much traction with a Republican conference thats campaigned on doing the opposite.

The Freedom Caucuss alternative is to make up the difference with deep cuts to welfare programs. Meadows said his caucus has identified upward of $500 billion in mandatory savings options Republicans could exercise. Most other House Republicans, though, seem unlikely to go along with those cuts.

The Freedom Caucus knows that even without the BAT, if the party leadership is determined to be revenue-neutral, conservatives might be pressured into accepting a higher corporate tax rate to offset revenue losses, which they believe would reduce the economic growth generated by the bill.

Thats why caucus members are fighting for more dramatic mandatory spending cuts in the budget resolution a welfare reform package that they say could in part pay for tax cuts.

With Medicare and Social Security off the table, the Freedom Caucus wants to put Medicaid, cash assistance, and food stamp programs on the chopping block. Currently the budget resolution has written in $203 billion in mandatory savings cuts overall. The Freedom Caucus wants something closer to $400 billion.

There are a lot of other dynamics at play here as well.

House Republicans, with overwhelming consensus, want to hike defense spending to $621.5 billion, which would bust the defense budget caps in the Senate set at $549 billion. Authorizing that level of spending requires negotiating with Democrats, which would almost certainly increase to non-defense discretionary spending from the $511 billion the House has proposed.

House leadership has floated avoiding Democrats altogether by putting the additional defense funding in the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which covers unplanned military expenses outside of the budgets baseline. The proposed budget resolution already calls for $75 billion in OCO. For defense hawks in the House, like Armed Services Committee Chair Mac Thornberry (R-TX), its better to have the money than not have the money, but more than $100 billion in OCO is not ideal.

House conservatives, anticipating this negotiation with Democrats, are only heightening their call for more mandatory savings.

Maybe we as the Freedom Caucus can live with a higher budget number if in fact we do real welfare reform on the tax bill work requirements, time limits on able-bodied adults [are] part of that package, Jordan said of a proposal to tie tax reform to welfare reform.

Because budget reconciliation instructions denote specific savings requirements for each committee, the Freedom Caucus is pushing for higher savings assigned to committees with purview over welfare programs, like the Agriculture Committee, which oversees food stamps.

Thats a difficult ask for committees that have their own spending priorities.

For example, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), who chairs the Agriculture Committee, has a farm bill to think about to cover rural, low-income, and farming constituents. He and Budget Committee Chair Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) have made assurances that he would push for reforms including renewed work requirements for the food stamp programs, but not necessarily through the reconciliation bill.

Leadership say members can sign on to either $203 billion in savings overall or zero, one Republican aide close to the Budget Committee said and thats not enough to bring the archconservatives on board.

But for now, the Freedom Caucus isnt buying this binary choice without their votes, this resolution will fail on the House floor, and with it any hope for tax reform.

The question is, who will give in to the pressure first?

Theres no wiggle room for a failed budget resolution and no faction of the party will want to come out against the president.

The battle ultimately comes down to the same two political dynamics that almost choked the health bill earlier this year: an era of extreme partisanship, in which congressional Democrats and Republicans are unlikely to work together, and a Republican Party that is polarized between its own moderates and conservatives.

Despite an ambitious agenda to repeal Obamacare, rein in government spending, and slash taxes, congressional Republicans have yet to enact a single piece of major legislation.

Thats left the White House desperate for some big policy wins fast. This game of chicken between House leadership and Freedom Caucus members is a big gamble. The lower chambers far-right contingent might have been able to successfully extract key concessions from Trump on health care but its not certain they can do it again.

The White House is much more involved in the business of cutting taxes than it has been on health care policy. And the reality from this fight over the budget resolution is that if it continues and is exacerbated by the Senate it could keep Trump from yet another win.

Follow this link:

The coming Republican civil war over the budget resolution, explained - Vox

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on The coming Republican civil war over the budget resolution, explained – Vox

Sealand | Fifth World Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Posted: at 8:35 am

The Principality of Sealand is a micronation that claims as its territory the artificial island of Roughs Tower, a former Maunsell Sea Fort located in the North Sea 10 km (six miles) off the coast of Suffolk, England, as well as territorial waters in a twelve-nautical-mile radius. Sealand is occupied by family members and associates of Paddy Roy Bates, who styles himself as H.R.H. Prince Roy of Sealand. The population of the facility rarely exceeds five, and its inhabitable area is 550 m.

Although Sealand's claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are not recognized by any country, it is probably the world's best-known micronation, and is sometimes cited in debates as an interesting case study of how various principles of international law can be applied to a territorial dispute.

In 1942, during World War II, HM Fort Roughs was constructed by the UK as one of the Maunsell Sea Forts. It comprised a floating pontoon base with a superstructure of two hollow towers joined by a deck upon which other structures could be added. The fort was towed to a position above Rough Sands sandbar where its base was intentionally flooded so that it sank to a resting place on the sandbar. The location chosen was in international waters, outside the then three-mile territorial water claim of the United Kingdom.

The facility (termed Roughs Tower) was occupied by 150300 Royal Navy personnel throughout World War II; post-war it was not until 1956 that the last full-time personnel were taken off HM Fort Roughs and marking of its position as a shipping hazard was left to Trinity House. On September 2, 1967, the fort was occupied by Major Paddy Roy Bates, a British subject and pirate radio broadcaster, who ejected a competing group of pirate broadcasters and claimed sovereignty on the basis of his interpretation of international law (see Legal status).

Sealand several months after the fire.

In 1968, Roy's son Michael Bates was summoned to court as a result of an incident during which shots were fired at a British navy vessel in the vicinity of Sealand. According to some reports the vessel's occupants were intending to evict the Bates family from the fortress, while others state that they were simply attempting to repair a nearby navigation buoy. In delivering its decision on November 25 1968, the court, in Chelmsford, Essex, stated that because the incident occurred outside British territorial waters, the court possessed no jurisdiction. Bates cited this case as evidence of de facto sovereignty.

In 1978, while Bates was away, the "Prime Minister" of Sealand, Alexander G. Achenbach, and several German and Dutch citizens, staged a forcible takeover of Roughs Tower, holding Bates' son Michael captive, before releasing him several days later in the Netherlands.

Bates thereupon enlisted armed assistance and, in a helicopter assault, retook the fortress. He then held the invaders captive, claiming them as prisoners of war. Most participants in the invasion were repatriated at the cessation of the "war", but Gernot Ptz, a German lawyer who held a Sealand passport, was charged with treason against Sealand and was held unless he paid DM 75,000 (more than 18,000). The governments of the Netherlands and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom disavowed all responsibility, citing the 1968 court decision. Germany then sent a diplomat from its London embassy to Roughs Tower to negotiate for Ptz's release, and after several weeks Roy Bates relented, subsequently claiming that the diplomat's visit constituted de facto recognition of Sealand by Germany.

Following his repatriation, Achenbach established an "exile government" in Germany, in opposition to Roy Bates, assuming the name "Chairman of the Privy Council". Upon Achenbach's resignation for health reasons in August 1989, the rebel government's "Minister for Economic Co-operation", Johannes Seiger, assumed control, with the position of "Prime Minister and Chairman of the Privy Council". Seiger continues to claim that he is Sealand's legitimate ruling authority.

Sealand claims the waters surrounding Roughs Tower to the extent of twelve nautical miles, and it has claimed to have physically defended this claim on at least one occasion: in an incident in 1990, the Royal Maritime Auxiliary vessel Golden Eye was fired upon from Sealand.

For a period, Sealand passports were mass-manufactured and sold widely (mostly to Eastern Europeans) by a Spanish-based group believed to be associated with the exile government under Seiger. These passports, which were not authorised by the Bates family, were linked to several high-profile crimes, including the murder of Gianni Versace. Due to the massive quantity of illegal passports in circulation (estimated at 150,000), in 1997 the Bates family revoked all Sealand passports, including those that they themselves had issued in the previous thirty years.

In 1987 the UK expanded its territorial waters by 9 nautical miles. This encompassed the Rough Sands area. In 1990-1991 the UK submitted evidence in a U.S. Administrative Court Case, the ruling for which included a statement to the effect that no independent "Principality of Sealand" had ever existed. This case was not challenged by the Bates family, who assert that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction in determining the legitimacy of other states.

Map of Sealand and the United Kingdom, with territorial water claims of 3nm and 12nm shown (note the 12 mile limit was introduced in 1987 -not 1968).

Sealand's claim that it is an independent state is founded on the following two propositions:

In international law, the two most common schools of thought for the creation of statehood are the constitutive and declaratory theories of state creation. The constitutive theory was the standard nineteenth century model of statehood, and the declaratory theory was developed in the twentieth century to address shortcomings of the constitutive theory. In the constitutive theory, a state exists exclusively via recognition by other states. The theory splits on whether this recognition requires "diplomatic recognition" or merely "recognition of existence". It is clear that no other state grants Sealand diplomatic recognition, but it has been argued by Bates that negotiations carried out by Germany constituted "recognition of existence". In the declaratory theory of statehood, an entity becomes a state as soon as it meets the minimal criteria for statehood. Recognition by other states is purely "declaratory".

One set of criteria for statehood under international law is defined by the Montevideo Convention. This asserts that a defined territory, permanent population, government and the capacity to enter into relationships with other sovereign states are the only foundation requirements for a sovereign state. None of these requirements necessarily has to conform to a certain size or standard, but their general characteristics should be taken into account.

A similar set of criteria for statehood is found in the European Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence and disappearance of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory.

Since the 1968 UK court decision, the United Kingdom has extended its territorial sea to twelve nautical miles (22 km), which it had the legal right to do under international law since 1958 (although the necessary Act of Parliament was not passed until 1987). These and subsequent laws have dealt with the construction and legal position of artificial islands. However, as Roughs Tower is actually a sunken ship, some have claimed it is not covered by these rulings. Sealand declared that it, too, was extending its claim of territorial waters to twelve nautical miles at a similar time to the UK.

According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is no transitional law and no possibility to consent to the existence of a construction which was previously approved or built by a neighbouring state. This means that artificial islands may no longer be constructed and then claimed as sovereign states, or as state territories, for the purposes of extension of an exclusive economic zone or of territorial waters. However, since Roughs Tower is not an artificial island but a sunken ship, it would be necessary for Her Majesty's Crown Estate (which owns the land itself under the tower) to act as the complainant landlord in order to get the wreck removed from its property. If Sealand is a sunken ship rather than an artificial island then no claim to statehood can be made, as a ship cannot constitute the "permanent" territory required for statehood to be established.

The only prospect for successful assertion of sovereignty would be to show that there was de facto sovereignty prior to 1968.

Although the UK has publicly asserted its authority over Roughs Tower, it appears to be government policy to refrain from comment or action except when forced. British Government documents, now available to the public under the 30-year expiry of confidentiality, show that the UK drafted plans to take the tower by force, but such plans were not implemented by the then Prime Minister due to the potential for loss of life, and the creation of a legal and public relations disaster.

In 1978 a German court ruled that Sealand was not a valid nation: "A man-made artificial platform, such as the so-called Duchy of Sealand, cannot be called either 'a part of the earth's surface' or 'land territory' and only structures which make use of a specific piece of the earth's surface can be recognised as State territory within the meaning of international law." (In re Duchy of Sealand (1978) 80 ILR 683, 685 (Administrative Court of Cologne))

In 1990 a US Administrative Court also ruled that Sealand was not a valid sovereign nation, following evidence from James Murphy of the Department of Trade and Industry. On appeal in 1991 the decision that the state called Sealand does not exist, and has not ever existed was upheld by a US Federal Court.

The Times on December 6, 2005, claimed that the British government and courts finally admitted that Sealand "is outside British national territory [...] and not part of the United Kingdom", however The Times did not elaborate and there has been no confirmation by other sources.

Roy and Joan Bates claimed Sealand as their own in 1967.

Irrespective of its legal status, Sealand is managed by the Bates family as though it were a recognised sovereign entity, and they are its hereditary royal rulers.

Roy and Joan Bates have been referred to internally since the foundation of Sealand as "Their Royal Highnesses Prince Roy and Princess Joan of Sealand". Roy Bates is styled "Sovereign", and Joan Bates is sometimes described as being "in joint rule" with him. Their son is known as "His Royal Highness Prince Michael". Michael Bates has been referred to as the "Prince Regent" since 1999. In this role he apparently serves as Sealand's acting "Head of State" and also its "Head of Government". At a micronations conference hosted by the University of Sunderland on 25 November 2004, Sealand was represented by Michael Bates' son James, who was referred to as "Prince Royal James".

Sealand's royals are all believed to retain UK citizenship, and the family has not been in permanent residence on the Roughs Tower facility since 1999. The facility is now occupied by one or more caretakers representing Michael Bates, who himself lives in Leigh on Sea, England. As Sealand is not a recognised country, the Bates family officially travel internationally as British citizens.

Sealand possesses a simple constitution, instituted in 1995, which consists of a preamble and seven articles. The preamble asserts Sealand's independence, while the articles variously deal with Sealand's status as a constitutional monarchy, the empowerment of government bureaus, the role of an appointed, advisory Senate, the functions of an appointed, advisory legal tribunal, a proscription against the bearing of arms except by members of a designated "Sealand Guard", the exclusive right of the sovereign to formulate foreign policy and alter the constitution, and the hereditary patrilinear succession of the monarchy.

Current Sealand government bureaus are: the Bureau of External Affairs, the Bureau of Internal Affairs, and the Bureau of Posts Telecomms and Technology. Most of the organs of Sealand's government are apparently either inactive or operate outside of Sealand's territory itself. A Sealand State Corporation was chartered by Roy Bates and charged with the "development of the state" shortly after Sealand's foundation, but its current status and range of activities, if any, are unknown.

In 2000, worldwide publicity was created about Sealand due to the establishment of a new entity called HavenCo, a data haven, which effectively took control of Roughs Tower itself. According to the Sealand official website, no other visitors or activities would be permitted. The original claim to the right to occupy Roughs Tower was maintained by Michael Bates, whose father Roy has removed himself to a great extent from further daily involvement. However Ryan Lackey, HavenCo's founder, later quit and claimed that Bates had lied to him by keeping the 1990-1991 court case from him and that as a result he had lost the money he had invested in the venture. He stated that his only legal recourse was to sue Roy Bates in a British court of law, but to date no action has been taken.

Sealand's legal system is claimed to follow British common law, and statutes take the form of Decrees enacted by the Sovereign.

Sealand first issued postage stamps in 1969, when a helicopter service was instituted to carry mail between Roughs Tower and Brussels, Belgium. A significant volume of mail carrying Sealand stamps and postmarks was accepted without surcharge and passed by Belgian postal authorities into the international postal system at this time.

Although few stamp issues have been made since early 1970s, Sealand postage stamps and postal cancellations continue to be used on most if not all mail from the principality, although the actual volume of such mail is limited.

The official policy of the United Kingdom's Royal Mail is to stamp envelopes not bearing UK stamps with a 'revenue protection' cancellation, meaning that postal carriage charges may be claimed from the recipient although recent examples exist of mail bearing Sealand stamps and cancellations, to the exclusion of all others, being transmitted through the international postal system.

Sealand is not a member of the Universal Postal Union, which regulates the sending of mail between countries, and its address is in what it claims is a foreign country. In a similar manner, mail for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus must be addressed to 'Mersin 10, Turkey'. The address publicised by Sealand as its postal address is: 'Sealand 1001; Sealand Post Bag, IP11 9SZ, UK'. The Royal Mail postcode is the one for Felixstowe near Ipswich, and the Royal Mail website gives the following standardised address: 'Sealand Fort, PO Box 3, FELIXSTOWE, IP11 9SZ, UK'.

According to the Cinderella Stamp Club (UK), Sealand's stamps are classified as "locals"; such stamps are valid for the carriage of mail between a location that lacks a regular postal service, and a location from which the onward transmission of such mail occurs.

Sealand has declared its currency to be the "Sealand Dollar", which it deems to be at parity with the U.S. dollar. Several dozen different coins have been minted since 1972 in various units of this currency. Given Sealand's limited population, physical inaccessibility and lack of a real economy it is unlikely that these coins were ever intended for use as circulating currency. Most were produced in precious metals, which have appealed to investors and coin collectors. In the early 1990s, Achenbach's German group also produced a coin, featuring a likeness of Prime Minister Seiger.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article, "Sealand" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand, used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

See the original post here:

Sealand | Fifth World Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Posted in Sealand | Comments Off on Sealand | Fifth World Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Sealand – Wikitravel

Posted: at 8:35 am

Sealand [1] is a sea fort in the North Sea, located 10 km off the coast of Suffolk, England. It is best known for its (unrecognized) claim to be the world's smallest sovereign nation. However, it is currently regarded as a micronation by most non-Sealanders.

Visits to the Principality of Sealand are not normally permitted, and you will most likely need to pre-arrange a boat to take you there. Emergency or other special circumstances suggesting that a visit might be appropriate require prior approval from the Bureau of Internal Affairs, and may be considered by making a written application. Further information can be found here [2].

Walk. The entire habitable area of the fort is 550 sq.m.

The spectacular views of the English coast. Make sure to also get a tour of the nation, where your guide will most likely show you the chapel, parliament room, engine room, gym and jail where a german invader was held for a few months in 1978.

Get your fitness on at Sealand's tiny gym

Worship God at Sealand's one and only chapel room

Take a tour of the house-sized nation

Buy some Sealandic stamps and coins

Pay 31 pounds to become official Sealandic nobility

Online Sealand has a comprehensive catalog of all things Sealand. This includes shirts, stamps, coins and even lordships.

There are no eateries in Sealand, so get ready to mainly eat low quality TV dinners supplied from England while you're there.

Canned beers, soda pop and bottled water supplied from England.

There are various bedrooms in Sealands pillars, with some consisting of just a bed and concrete walls, while others are decorated quite cozily.

The official Sealand website http://www.sealandgov.org/

The same way every visitor arrives: by boat.

WikiPedia:Principality of Sealand

See the article here:

Sealand - Wikitravel

Posted in Sealand | Comments Off on Sealand – Wikitravel

Fans Missing Out On Great Games As Bahamas Lands Two Silvers – Bahamas Tribune

Posted: at 8:30 am

By RICARDO WELLS

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

DESPITE reports of low attendance at some events associated with the Commonwealth Youth Games being hosted in the capital this week, federation representatives for the games yesterday applauded the Local Organising Committee for enduring gracefully.

Commonwealth Games Federation CEO David Grevemberg, in an interview with The Tribune, said the success of this years games should be qualified by the quality of the events put on and not tickets sold or given away.

On Thursday, the opening ceremony Tuesday night at the Thomas A Robinson National Stadium was sparse, and the stadium appeared to be a quarter filled.

The beach soccer games were poorly attended on Wednesday, however, officials said there were larger crowd at indoor events like judo.

In response to the report Thursday, Mr Grevemberg said the challenges endured by the Bahamas in the lead up to and during the games have been nothing short of horrendous.

Mr Grevemberg stated: We gave this country 18 months. During that time frame the country endured a massive storm and changed governments. With all of that, facilities have been prepared and are up to competition standards, infrastructure is in place and most of all, the athletes are here, comfortable and happy.

Again, it must be noted, this was all done in an 18-month window.

In 2011, St Lucia was awarded the 2017 CYG, but backed out of the commitment in September 2015 due to concerns with fundraising and its ability to create suitable venues to stage the overall event.

The Bahamas officially submitted a bid to host the games in January 2016.

Once the bid was awarded, the Bahamas was pressed to assemble the necessary physical and immaterial infrastructure in place to host the games.

In 2015, Louise Bell was appointed as chef de mission for Samoa 2015 in April of that year, roughly four and half months prior to those games.

Derron Donaldson was named chef de mission for the Bahamas 2017 in early June, roughly a month to go before the start of this years games.

Now while the position doesnt cover the day-to-day developments or the status of the games, the appointment of someone in this role normally signifies that organisers have shifted their focus to the promotional aspects of the games.

Two weeks after this appointment, local officials erected billboards and disseminated other promotional material across the country.

On the coverage and promotion of this years games locally, Mr Grevemberg stated: There has been tremendous work to get the word out there to the audience and persuade them to come out and support, those attempts are evident.

With that noted, we recognised the Bahamas is a small island state. A large percentage of the population is at work during the week, as in the case in other countries these have been held in.

He added: But, both local and global coverage has been absolutely brilliant and we are satisfied. We expect as we head into the weekend, I think the Bahamians will come out in droves for the athletic competitions, which the country is known for, and with all the other events.

There is no need to panic over this, these are tremendous games thus far and as the days go on, you can see it on the faces of the locals and the visitors, these games are something special.

On Wednesday, Romell Knowles, managing director of the games, told The Tribune that outdoor events were not as crowded as indoor ones, something he chalked up to the intense summer heat.

Given a chance to reflect on these comments yesterday, Mr Knowles maintained outdoor events were having issues, but added indoor events like judo on the initial two days of competition and boxing as of yesterday, have made up for the low numbers for the outdoor events.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the judo events were sold out. As a matter of fact, on Wednesday we had to add more seats to Kendall Isaacs Gym. We had 300 to 500 people there throughout those two days, and we are expecting similar numbers (Thursday) and (Friday) for boxing, stated Mr Knowles.

We meet with team leaders every day, their individual reports, like our overall reports show that people are turning up at these events. Are they world-record numbers? I am not saying that, but for a country the size of the Bahamas, for events through the day, scattered across five sites, we are getting quality turnouts, he added.

The CYG is the latest international sporting event hosted here, flowing from the former Christie administrations efforts to boost sports tourism. The event was agreed to by the former government.

According to Minister of Youth Sports and Culture Michael Pintard, the event will cost the Bahamas about $7m to host.

The rest is here:

Fans Missing Out On Great Games As Bahamas Lands Two Silvers - Bahamas Tribune

Posted in Bahamas | Comments Off on Fans Missing Out On Great Games As Bahamas Lands Two Silvers – Bahamas Tribune