Category Archives: Libertarian

Libertarians Win Complaint Against Cook County Clerk (Chicago, IL) Judge rules Libertarian Party attained established status.

Last Friday, the Libertarian Party of Illinois won an important ballot access lawsuit filed against Cook County Clerk Karen Yarbrough and the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman ruled that the Libertarian Party attained established party status when its Cook County States Attorney candidate Brian Dennehy received more than 5% of the vote in the 2020 general election. This allows Libertarians to run candidates for Cook County Board of Commissioners and Cook County Board of Review in the June 28th, 2022, primary election.

I applaud the courts decision to uphold the Constitution and the democratic process we value as Americans, said District 1 Commissioner candidate James Humay, a plaintiff in the suit. Clerk Yarborough failed in her attempt to impose restrictive ballot access rules that are designed to keep the Democratic stranglehold in place. It is not just a victory for the Libertarian Party but for the voters of Cook County as well.

Im pleased that the judge gave the Libertarian candidates and the people of Cook County justice, explained Jason Ross Decker, District 5 Commissioner candidate and also a plaintiff. Im bothered that we needed a legal team to defend our rights as potential candidates. Im upset that the taxpayers will have to pay the bill for the County Clerk attempting to block our attempts to run for county offices. To me, this shows that the political machine is fearful of outsiders taking office. It also appears that they will try to make up their own rules as they go.

Yarbrough originally maintained that the LP was established for only countywide offices. This prompted Libertarians to file the complaint last January in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. The complaint asserted that the Cook County Clerk and Board of Election Commissioners willfully violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs, who were represented by Andrew Finko.

This is the second time in almost two years that the Libertarian Party of Illinois sued for access to the ballot. In May 2020, they successfully won a case against Governor JB Pritzker and the Illinois Board of Elections, arguing that COVID-19 measures impeded the ability of new parties to collect signatures. This ruling gave new parties lower signature thresholds for the 2020 election cycle and paved the way for Brian Dennehys campaign for Cook County States Attorney.

If Democrats are serious about tackling voter suppression, I sure hope they look at replacing current Cook County election officials, Libertarian Party of Illinois State Chair Steve Suess said. Im beyond excited about what our Chicagoland candidate will accomplish this election cycle.

For a party that has been so vocal about fairness and inclusiveness in elections, its stunning to see the lengths they will go to prevent anyone outside their party from participating in the political process, noted Donny Henry, Libertarian Party of Illinois Vice-Chair.

By trying to keep challengers off the ballot, the Clerks office helped insulate incumbents who are often returned to office in uncontested elections, with a prearranged setting to keep it that way, said Adam Balling, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Chicago. Once again, local Libertarians prove the machine wrong.

The Libertarian Party of Chicago will be hosting a Candidate Meet and Greet at Fatpour Tap Works on March 11 at 2005 W. Division Street in Chicagos Wicker Park starting at 7 PM. The public is enthusiastically invited to attend. Libertarian candidates expected to attend include Bill Redpath (US Senate), Thea Tsatsos (Board President), Joseph Schreiner (County Clerk), Michael Murphy (County Treasurer), Nico Tsatsoulis (County Assessor), and James Humay (District 1 Commissioner).

The Libertarian Party of Chicago is a local chapter of the Libertarian Party of Illinois, an affiliate of the national Libertarian Party. The party is comprised of common people united by two goals: 1) to advocate for a better Chicago through the promotion of liberty and 2) to make the Libertarian Party a legitimate and viable political option in modern American politics. Join us for our monthlymeetings (www.LPChicago.org/events) and follow us on Facebook at @ChicagoLP.

See more here:

Libertarians Win Complaint Against Cook County Clerk The Southland Journal - The Southland Journal

Yet in recent years, libertarians increasingly seem less concerned with how their policies might actually impact people. Convinced that markets are virtually always the best way to approach any issue, they have allied with many of the same forces monopoly capital, anti-suburban zealots and the tech oligarchy which are systematically undermining the popular rationale for market capitalism.

This is one of the opening paragraphs of Joel Kotkin, The limits of libertarianism, spiked-online, March 4, 2022.

The articles title caught my attention because Kotkins work would often lead someone to believe that he is sympathetic to libertarianism, and I think he is.

Whats his criticism? He gets to it quickly, writing:

Nowhere is the disconnect between libertarianism and its traditional base of small-property owners more obvious than in housing. In their zeal, sometimes justified, to end the worst zoning abuses, the libertarians have allied themselves with two forces, monopoly capital and social engineers (also known as city planners), whose goal is not to expand the blessings of ownership, but to squelch it for all but a few. Their end game is to leave most peoplestuck in small apartments.

Libertarians have served as fellow travellers and allies to the hyperactive, oligarch-fundedYIMBY(Yes in My Backyard) movement. In essence, as former Cato fellowRandal OToolenotes, the libertarian right has betrayed the very middle class that most supports conservative causes. OToole, who had been Catos land-use expert since 2007, was forced out in favour ofan alliance, as he puts it, working hand-in-hand with left-wing groups seeking to force Californians to live in ways in which they didnt want to live.

Some libertarians see this as a free-market housing fix, although in their worship of markets most have said little about policies that prevent construction on the periphery a principal contributor to excessively high housing costs. Expanded ownership is a noble cause. But it is hardly the intention of the strongest advocates for these policies.Victoria Fierceof the YIMBY pro-density lobby in California, for example, favours increasing urban density in part because it promotes collectivism. In some senses, the approach of some YIMBYs reflects the planning orthodoxy seen in the late Soviet Union. In the 1950s,Alexei GutnovpublishedThe Ideal Communist City, which, while acknowledging the appeal of suburbia, rejected it as unsuitable for a society that prioritises equality and social control.

Consider the first of these 3 paragraphs. Normally, when one criticizes zoning for restricting the supply of housing, one would be seen as being against monopoly capital. But Kotkin sees the Cato Institutes opposition to zoning as being part of an alliance with monopoly capitalists. Hes pretty vague about how that works.

If you read the link at the end of that first paragraph, you learn that developers are taking advantage of the new California law that allows more building on land zoned for single-family housing and that they are making lots of money doing so. What he seems not to confront is what this means for housing prices: they will fall or at least not rise as much as they would have. Increases in supply, all else equal, bring prices down. I would have thought that that would be a great way to help normal people.

Kotkin is right that more building on a given amount of land leads to denser housing. What he doesnt successfully do is explain why this is bad.

Instead, he makes two arguments, one that is legitimate and one that is essentially guilt by association.

His legitimate argument, if hes right about the facts, is that in their worship of markets most have said little about policies that prevent construction on the periphery a principal contributor to excessively high housing costs. I dont know if Kotkin is right about Catos relative silence on this issue. Lets take as given that he is right. Then the answer should be that they should say more about such policies, not that they should defend single-family zoning. We have 2 contributors to higher housing prices: restrictions on building in areas zoned for single families and restrictions on building on the periphery. Cato and others should go after both. But thats not an argument against going after one of those. Theres no either/or here.

His guilt by association argument is this:

Expanded ownership is a noble cause. But it is hardly the intention of the strongest advocates for these policies. Victoria Fierce of the YIMBY pro-density lobby in California, for example, favours increasing urban density in part because it promotes collectivism.

Lets say hes right about Victoria Fierces and others intentions. Kotkin doesnt make clear whether Cato is allying with her and those others. But lets say they do. How is Cato responsible for what their intentions are? Moreover what happened to the idea of going beyond intentions and actually looking at the likely expected effects? One main effect will be to bring down the price of housing.

Kotkin continues:

Here is the original post:

Joel Kotkin's Criticism of Libertarians and the Cato Institute - Econlib

In an article titled Invitation to a Stoning in the libertarian magazine Reason in 1998, Walter Olson wrote that one effect of Mr. Norths extreme views was to allow everyone else to feel moderate.

He added, Almost any anti-abortion stance seems nuanced when compared with Gary Norths advocacy of public execution not just for women who undergo abortions but for those who advised them to do so.

Asked to assess Mr. Norths legacy, David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a respected libertarian research group that is generally conservative on economic solutions and more liberal on social issues, said, Ive never read North and havent paid much attention to him.

But many others did, according to Mr. Norths website, which boasts, No website for any evangelical news magazine, news site, theological seminary, church denomination, or publisher was even close to his in popularity.

Mr. North was a meticulous researcher. In 1996, he published Crossed Fingers, a 1,000-page account of how theological liberals influenced the Presbyterian Church during the early 20th century.(The first 300 pages alone included 900 footnotes.) In 2012, fulfilling a mission he began in 1973, he completed a 31-volume economic commentary on the Bible.

While some of Mr. Norths strong views could be put down to matters of opinion or preference, his many critics said others were weakly held or downright wrong. His prediction, for instance, that a computer catastrophe at midnight on Dec. 31, 1999, popularly known as Y2K, would set the stage for the birth of a liberating Christian theocracy Y2K is our deliverance, he declared proved unfounded.

Go here to see the original:

Gary North, Apostle of Bible-Based Economics, Dies at 80 - The New York Times

People campaigning for public office had until 5 p.m. on Friday to formally launch their bids, and the candidate pool for County Courthouse races is more balanced than in recent years.

Summit County voters will have the chance to hear from Republican, Democrat and Libertarian candidates this fall, marking the first time theres been a contested county race between parties in two election cycles. Though a few incumbents at the County Courthouse remain unchallenged, there was increased interest in other positions.

County Attorney Margaret Olson, Sheriff Justin Martinez and Clerk Evelyn Furse filed for reelection midweek and face no challengers. Auditor Michael Howard submitted his bid on Friday and will face Peoa resident Cindy Keyes for the Democratic party nomination and the seat, barring a successful write-in campaign at the county convention in April.

Democratic delegates will also choose between former Snyderville Basin Planning Commissioner Canice Harte and longtime Parkite Coleen Reardon for the partys nomination for Summit County Council Seat E, which is currently occupied by Glenn Wright. Wright is not pursuing another term for County Council but is seeking the Democratic Partys nomination in the 3rd Congressional District.

Republicans will pick between former Francis Mayor Byron Ames and John Jack Murphy at the GOP convention to represent their party in the race.

A primary election will be held on June 28 if candidates from one or both parties fail to earn enough delegate support at the county convention. Michael Franchek, who filed for the seat as a Libertarian, will appear on the November ballot.

Republican Holly McClure, meanwhile, is challenging Summit County Council Chair Chris Robinson, a Democrat, for Seat D.

Summit County voters are also responsible for electing representatives to several Statehouse positions.

Republicans Logan Wilde, incumbent lawmaker Kera Birkeland and Raelene Blocker are campaigning for House District 4, along with Democrat Kris Campbell. The candidates for House District 23 include incumbent Brian King, a Democrat and the House minority leader; Cabot Nelson, of the United Utah Party; and Ruth Abbott, a Republican. Incumbent Mike Kohler and Scott Chew, both Republicans, are running unchallenged for House Districts 59 and 68, respectively.

The race for Senate District 20 is between Republican Ron Winterton, the incumbent, and Democrat Jill Fellow.

Voters who want to change their party affiliations ahead of the primary elections have until March 31 to update their information.

See the rest here:

Which candidates launched bids for County Courthouse and Statehouse seats during the filing window? - The Park Record

Whether theyre discussing refugees attempting to take their money across a dangerous border or supporting unruly truckers occupying a key bridge between the U.S. and Canada, coiners have increasingly come to see their holdingsespecially bitcoin, the ur-cryptoas an essential tool for securing their own freedom. Last year much of the talk around cryptos value was as a hedge against rising inflation. Now its something much more: a last backstop against governments depriving citizens of the one right that matters: the right to transact. For some libertarian-minded coiners, the right to freely trade crypto takes precedence over opposing a Russian invasion of a sovereign nation. In the most fundamentalist corners of crypto, the individual is sovereign, and the state has no authority to limit what a person can do with their assets, digital or otherwise.

While crypto culture is far from monolithic, recent political upheavals have made some coiners more certain that traditional forms of governance cant be relied upon, that they can only count on themselves. Not your keys not your coins, goes one common crypto meme, meaning that coiners must self-custody their own coins, without handing over their private keys (passwords, essentially) to exchanges or other third parties. In the arch-individualist world of crypto, trustless is a bywordin the sense of eliminating even the need for trustwith the hard certainty of code and so-called smart contracts replacing the messiness, and autonomy, of human intermediaries and traditional, regulated financial institutions.

In the eyes of crypto observers like David Golumbia, the author of The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism, recent events have revealed the illiberal politics and self-interest at the heart of crypto. All forms of libertarianism use the rhetoric of freedom and democracy to cloak the raw pursuit of personal power, wrote Golumbia in an email. Critics of political libertarianism have long pointed out that quite a few of its leading figures ([Friedrich] Hayek, [Ludwig von] Mises, Milton Friedman) ended up supporting right-wing dictators, most notably Pinochet. Others note that the elevation of what libertarians call economic freedom at the expense of all other values and rights very quickly leads to dictatorial politics.

Under this ideological framework, a war that tears apart the democratic fabric of society is a validation of coiners beliefs. It reinforces the commonly voiced idea that contemporary political systems cannot possibly guarantee the financial liberty thats supposedly the precondition for all other rights. Whats most troubling, then, is not just the primacy that some coiners place on the freedom to transact above other, more pro-social rights. Its that they have given up on politics entirely and will switch sides in a war based on how it affects their wallets. When nation-states are invaded and economies teeter toward collapse, they find a moment of opportunity, a time to invoke another core crypto mantra: This is bullish.

See the original post:

Bitcoin Goes to War - The New Republic

Political commentator George Will says in a scathing new opinion piece that Donald Trump is "the suppurating wound on American life," predicting the end of the former president's political career.

Will, a libertarian-conservative author, serves as a regular columnist for the Washington Post, providing an opposing view for the typically liberal newspaper. Will was also a contributing editor for Newsweek until 2011.

Many Republicans continue to stand behind former President Trump. Will argued in a Post op-ed published Friday, though, that Trump's influence over the party was waning, saying that he was "faltering at the business of commanding outcomes that are...independent of his interventions."

"Floundering in his attempts to wield political power while lacking a political office, Donald Trump looks increasingly like a stray orange hair to be flicked off the nation's sleeve," Will wrote. "His residual power, which he must use or lose, is to influence his party's selection of candidates for state and federal offices."

"This is, however, perilous because he has the power of influence only if he is perceived to have it. That perception will dissipate if his interventions in Republican primaries continue to be unimpressive," Will said.

Will used the example of former Georgia Senator David Perdue as an example of what he said was Trump's detriment to Republicans.

"Trump, harping on the cosmic injustice of his November loss in 2020, confused and demoralized Georgia Republicans enough to cause Perdue's defeat by 1.2 percentage points in the January 2021 runoff," Will said. "Nevertheless, Trump talked Perdue into running in this year's gubernatorial primary...in a February poll, [current Georgia Governor Brian Kemp] led Perdue by 10 points."

A number of Trump's other political endorsements for the upcoming 2022 midterms are also trailing in their respective polls, Will noted. This includes the case of Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachen, who, despite the former president's endorsement, trailed in the primary by 41 percent in a January poll.

Another person pointed out by Will was Representative Ted Budd (R-N.C.), a Trump-backed candidate for a North Carolina Senate seat that is currently also behind in the polls.

Will continued by analyzing the current situation in Ukraine, where Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion remains ongoing.

"A European war is unhelpful for Trump because it reminds voters that [poet Henry Wadsworth] Longfellow was right: Life is real, life is earnest," Will said. "Trump's strut through presidential politics was made possible by an American reverie; war in Europe has reminded people that politics is serious."

"We are the sum of our choices, and Vladimir Putin has provoked some Trump poodles to make illuminating ones," Will wrote. "J.D. Vance, groveling for Trump's benediction (Vance covets Ohio's Republican Senate nomination), two weeks ago said: "I don't really care what happens to Ukraine."

Will ended his piece by saying: "For Trump, the suppurating wound on American life, and for those who share his curdled venom, war is a hellacious distraction from their self-absorption. Fortunately, their ability to be major distractions is waning."

While Will does identify as a libertarian-conservative, his lambasting of Trump is not the first time that he has criticized the former president, along with other Republicans.

In 2012, Will wrote of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who at the time was one of the top contenders in the GOP presidential primaries: "[Gingrich]... embodies almost everything disagreeable about modern Washington." He also heavily criticized Sarah Palin's vice-presidential candidacy in the lead up to her 2008 electoral loss.

Notably, Will also wrote of his dislike for Trump several times throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, later saying in an interview that year that he was no longer a registered member of the Republican Party.

Will additionally told USA Today in 2020 that he would vote for then-candidate Joe Biden in the upcoming election.

Newsweek has reached out to Trump's office for comment.

See original here:

Trump Is 'Stray Orange Hair To Be Flicked Off Nation's Sleeve,' Says Writer - Newsweek

Poland has absorbed around 1 million of the 1.5 million refugees who have fled Ukraine since Russia invaded on Feb. 24, The Guardian reported Sunday.

"Poland's population has increased by about 3 percent in the last 10 days due to Ukrainian refugees," Alex Nowrasteh, the director of economic and social policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote on Twitter.

"Good for Poland," Nowrasteh continued. "[K]eep those doors open."

According to data from the World Bank, Poland had a population of around 38 million in 2020.

The Guardian reported Anastasia Lapatina, who observed the refugee crisis in a Polish border town, said she saw "the best of humanity" as Polish volunteers provided Ukrainian refugees with free "food, water, clothes, phones with prepaid plans, accommodation, [and] legal advice."

According to The New York Times, men between the ages of 18 and 60 are forbidden to leave Ukraine, and consequently "the crowds pouring into Poland, Hungary and other neighboring nations are eerily devoid of men."

European Union Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson said last Sunday that European Union member nations "should be prepared for millions" of refugees.

Continued here:

Ukrainian refugees swell Poland's population by 3 percent in 10 days - The Week

What do they mean by "true conservative?"

Sown into the narrative of the September Conservative Party of Canadas leadership campaign is yet another a debate about who or what is truly conservative. Or, to be completely accurate in the context of the current leadership race, "truly Conservative."

Leadership hopeful Pierre Poilievre has become the latest advocate of the true Conservative movement. Fluently bilingual, born in Calgary, and now holding a seat in the greater Ottawa area, Poilievre is a fiscal and social conservative with strong libertarian sensibilities, a skepticism about climate change and a refined grasp of retail politics.

Poilievre is considered the front-runner in the race to replace former leader Erin OToole, although hes also the only declared candidate right now. But even without a formal opponent to battle, hes clearly concerned about reports suggesting that former Quebec premier and Progressive Conservative Party of Canada leader Jean Charest is considering a run.

Pierre Poilievre is considered the front-runner in the race to replace former leader Erin OToole. (Michael Bell / The Canadian Press files)

Perhaps to discourage him from entering the race, Poilievres forces are letting the party members know that Charest is not a "true Conservative."

The rhetoric is becoming dangerously unstable. Recently, Tory MP Shannon Stubbs, who is from Alberta, Tweeted a meme of Charest and Trudeau together with the message that "our leader must share our values and respect our policies."

Statements like this start to sound dangerously sectarian. It doesnt matter whether youre talking about race, religion or political ideology, anyone touting the "one true way" is really just trying to bludgeon dissent and debate within an institution.

How do Poilievre and his supporters come to this conclusion about Charest?

Once a leader of the now-defunct federal Progressive Conservative party, Charest left federal politics and went on to become the premier of Quebec and leader (gasp!) of the Quebec Liberal party. Western conservatives may gag at Charests career path but informed sources closer to the scene of that bit of political history know the Quebec Liberal party has very little in common with the federal Liberal party.

Moreover, Quebec political pundits understand that many federal Conservatives park their provincial votes with the Liberals. Disparaging Charests time as a provincial Liberal may help Poilievre win support from Western Canadian party members, but it wont help his partys flagging fortunes in Quebec.

None of that stopped MPs, Senators and strategists supporting Poilievre from assailing Charest as having questionable Conservative credentials.

Poilievre supporters have accused Charest of unforgivable sins of supporting gun control, advocating for carbon pricing to combat climate change and otherwise embracing "anti-energy" policies that would devastate Canadas oil and gas industry. Its almost as if the entire party failed to embrace the painful lessons dealt to them in the last federal election.

Once a leader of the now-defunct federal Progressive Conservative party, Jean Charest left federal politics and went on to become the premier of Quebec. (Ruth Bonneville / Winnipeg Free Press files)

In a bid to defuse the Liberal partys tenuous hold on power, OToole tried to muzzle ugly socially conservative notions, moderate his partys position on climate change and pandemic management and avoid getting drawn into the quagmire of debates on things such as gun control. When he lost, he was labelled a turncoat by many of the people who are now lining up behind Poilievre.

Those people simply will not accept that OTooles failure in last falls election was not due to his refusal to adopt far-right values; his defeat was sown by a party that refuses to give up values and policies that only appeal to a small, angry constituency.

The biggest problem facing the CPC now is that there appears to be very little chance of going back and making the party more moderate, and thus more competitive.

The evolution of the CPC from Progressive Conservative through the Canadian Alliance party has shown an increasing appetite to lurch the party to the right. Former leader and prime minister Stephen Harper tried soft-selling true Conservatism to voters until, in 2015, he let the country see just how far right of centre he really was.

To borrow heavily from Monty Pythons infamous Dead Parrot skit, the progressive conservative movement that married the ideas of socially progressive and fiscally conservative has simply "expired." Its metabolic processes are now history. Its kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible. This is an ex-movement.

And what will replace it?

It looks increasingly likely the CPC is headed to the far-right fringes of the political wilderness. Under Poilievre, its easy to see the party attempt a raid on the ranks of the Peoples Party of Canada to create a new and potent right-wing movement, a la Donald Trumps "Make America Great Again" juggernaut.

The problem is that to achieve true power as a true Conservative in Canada, he needs to win more seats than any other party. If Trump had to win seats, as opposed to votes in a popularity contest, he would not have become president. Poilievre seems destined to follow a political strategy that simply does not work in a Canadian context.

Perhaps Charest, or another viable moderate, will run against Poilievre and make the CPC a truly national political party.

More likely is a scenario where he wins the leadership, alienates conservative voters outside of Western Canada, and allows the Liberals to continue governing on the slimmest of electoral margins.

Apparently, this is the fate that awaits the true Conservatives.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com

See more here:

Federal conservatives headed to the far-right fringes - Winnipeg Free Press

Its not too late to hear the candidates for governor talk about climate change at back-to-back public events this week.

Maryland Matters is a co-sponsor of in-person forums on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings and that will also be live-streamed.

The forums will take place at the University of Maryland College Park on Tuesday evening and at Goucher College in Towson on Wednesday evening. The public is welcome to attend the events in person, though seating is limited and members of the audience will be asked to show that they are fully vaccinated.

Click here to read more from our Climate Calling series.

Due to participate in both events: Democrats Jon Baron, Doug Gansler, Ashwani Jain, John King, Laura Neuman and Jerome Segal, Republican Robin Ficker and Libertarian David Lashar. Democrats Wes Moore and Tom Perez have committed to attending the Tuesday forum in College Park, and Democrat Peter Franchot will attend the Wednesday event at Goucher College.

The first climate forum is from 7-8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 8 at the Riggs Alumni Center at the University of Maryland at College Park.

The second is a night later, Wednesday, March 9, from 7-8:30 p.m. at the Ungar Athenaeum at Goucher College.

Republicans Dan Cox and Kelly Schulz have declined invitations to participate. Democrat Rushern Baker initially confirmed he would be at both events but now is not attending.

Maryland Matters co-sponsors for both events are the Maryland League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, the Sierra Club Maryland chapter, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Ed Hatcher and Angie Cannon. The College Park forum is also being sponsored by the Prince Georges County NAACP and the Environmental Justice Journalism Initiative. The Goucher event is being co-sponsored by the Baltimore County NAACP branch.

Maryland Matters Founding Editor Josh Kurtz will be a panelist at both events, asking the candidates questions.

For the College Park event, he will be joined as a questioner on the panel by Dr. Tonya Harrison-Edwards, legislative affairs chair for the NAACP Prince Georges County Branch, and Rona Kobell, an environmental journalist who is co-director of the Environmental Justice Journalism Initiative.

At Goucher, Kurtz will be joined on the panel by Staci Hartwell of the NAACP Maryland State Conference, Sheilah Kast, host of WYPRs On the Record, and Stella Krajick, a Goucher College political science and environmental studies student.

Click here if you are interested in learning more about these events.

The forums will be live-streamed on the Facebook pages of the Maryland LCV Education Fund, the Maryland Sierra Club and NAACP Maryland State Conference. If you are interested in watching the College Park forum on Facebook Live, click here. If you are interested in watching the Goucher forum on Facebook Live,click here.

The Maryland LCV is also sponsoring watch parties at a handful of college campuses in the state. For more information, click here.

And be on the look-out for post-forum coverage in Maryland Matters.

Maryland Matters participation in this event is part of the Climate Calling project we launched last year and another sign of our commitment to illuminating major issues in Maryland and holding political leaders to account. As part of that project, we raninterviews last fallwith the nine Democratic candidates for governor who were then in the race.

View original post here:

Time to Hear the Candidates for Governor Talk About Climate Change - Josh Kurtz

Every year the whos who of the real conservative America meets at the Conservative Political Action Conference organized by the American Conservative Union. Over the Trump administration, the faces of CPAC have changed from a more traditional conservative (tax cuts, pro-corporation) to an odd mixture of libertarian isolationism and cultural dog-whistling so loud that my labradoodle back at home started howling.

Back in 2017, I wrote for Nationofchange a piece titled You should be frightened, CPAC drifts even more right where I discussed the speeches from Wayne LaPierre, Dana Loesch and of course Donald Trump. They were terrifying, and meant to be sothey laid out a future of liberals running the future, forcing your kids to be gay, and cops knocking down your doors to get your guns.

Obviously, none of that has come to passbut we did in the proceeding years see a global pandemic that has killed one million Americans and an attempted and ongoing insurrection. There is a new type of fear to be had at CPAC 2022its masks, mandates, critical race theory, voter fraud, and to a lesser extent, immigrants.

Turning Point USAs Charlie Kirk, who has been drifting more and more right for years gave what was likely the best-received speech (outside of Trumps of course)told the audience that they need not worry about Ukraine and Russia. The U.S. southern border matters a lot more than the Ukrainian border, Im more worried about how the cartels are deliberately trying to infiltrate our country than a dispute 5,000 miles away in cities we cant pronounce, in places that most Americans cant find on a map. Former Trump official KT McFarland later in the day attempted to make people care about Russian expansionism and it fell on deaf earsisolationism and nationalism has taken over CPAC.

The cheerleaders for the pandemicanti-maskers anti-vaxxers and medical disinformation purveyors were among the main speakers at CPAC 2022. Sunday, Dr. Robert Malone sat on a panel with Senatorial candidate Dr. Oz (Ill get to him in a minute) called The Government is Dangerous to Your Health and continued spreading his disinformation. Dr. Malone has been the lead horse in the apocalyptic charge amongst right-wing media punching disinformation about vaccines and the virus. He was Joe Rogans guest that prompted the large outcry against the MMA commentator and reality show hosts podcast.

Dr. Oz who has been at the head of medical misinformation for decades, used his wildly popular and long-running tv show to stow doubt in his viewers about trusted medicineand push them towards his miracle cures. Hes now running for U.S. Senate in the Pennsylvania Republican primary and hasnt stopped. Current polling has him in second placebut Oz is well funded by his own millions hes sold selling snake oil.

The insurrectionists were also at CPAC in force (this time no Oath Keepers were seen) all on stage with prominent speaking times. Sen. Josh Hawley, Representatives Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn, and Matt Gaetz were all cheered and greeted at martyrs to the cause. All had been canceledand they were there to speak about it.

Sen. Hawley in his speech specifically cited his heroic fight to stop the count and defend election integrity. He was cheered for it. Pillow magnate Mike Lindell was not on stage but still had his own speaking time in the exhibition room. Friend of Ali Alexander and Stop the Steal campaigner and grassroots activist Scott Pressler did make it to the stage and the line for selfies with him was around the hall.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, joined by CPAC speaker and pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio also attended the America First PAC conference on the other side of Orlando. She shared a stage with AFPAC organizer, the racist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Fuentes leads a troop of young Christian fascists nick-named the groypers. Also in attendance at this event were Arizona Republican State Senator Wendy Rogers, Congressman Steve King, and Gab founder Andrew Torbaall people known for embracing white nationalism.

Wandering the halls, identified as America Firsters by their hats were also a small number of Fuentes groypers. Arizona Neo-Nazi and groyper Greyson Arnold was in attendance for at least Thursday and Friday.

While Im doubtful well be seeing Nick Fuentes and his groypers speaking on panels in the next year or twotheres no need. His message of fear and nationalism has been heard by the conservatives in Washington D.C. and at the American Conservative Union. Embrace it or get buried. Thats how Trump won in 2016theyre using his fascist trailblazing but getting rid of the dog-whistles.

FALL FUNDRAISER

If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.

Go here to read the rest:

CPAC 2022no war, but the culture war - NationofChange