Category Archives: Libertarian

The mortgage meltdown of 2008 was rough, but to me it seems that the last time life was so thoroughly upended was 9/11, nearly two decades ago. Since the first reports of positive tests for the new coronavirus (COVID-19) in Colorado on March 5, it feels like were living in a different world.

If youve been glued to your cable news or Twitter feed, you probably feel like youve been drinking from the proverbial firehouse. Whats a coronavirus, whats different about this one, whats its R naught, how likely are people to die from it, and what can we do, if anything, to beat it? For most of us the learning curve has been both steep and slippery, as even experts have struggled to get a handle on aspects of this disease.

Meanwhile, as government shuts down businesses across the state, the unemployment forms pile up, and people start to go stir-crazy from social distancing, a lot of us are wondering how far government should go in restricting peoples liberties. Is a heavy government hand really the only or best way to prevent needless death? And how should we weigh the harms of the disease against the harms of a devastated economy? Or is that question too horrible even to consider?

Bluntly, I dont have many definitive answers. And anyone who promises you easy answers to these questions is, well, lets just say they should get in line for some more toilet paper. What I think I can do is help set some context for fruitful ways to think about the questions.

Free-market advocates have pointed to the myriad ways that stupid government policies have hampered the response to the virus. For example, did you know that hospitals often have to (in effect) ask permission from their competitors in order to open new facilities and buy new equipment? Ridiculous. Indeed, one of the major steps that Governor Jared Polis and governors elsewhere took was to remove government barriers to the disease response, as by loosening regulations on hospitals and health professionals. The federal government notoriously tied up testing for the disease in bureaucratic red tapea profound failure.

Free-market advocates also have pointed to the crucial ways that private enterprise has stepped up to address the problem. As economist Tyler Cowen puts the point, Big business is helping America survive the coronavirus.

But even if we grant that politicians and bureaucrats have done a lot of really stupid things, and that business leaders have done many wonderful things to respond, it might still be the case that an important response to the virus (maybe the most important response) is the one by government. Thats the key question I want to consider here.

First, though, I need to dispel a common confusion. A lot of people, whether Progressive, conservative, or libertarian, see the fundamental issue as government power versus individual freedom. Often pitting power against freedom is a useful way to look at things, but it isnt the fundamental.

The fundamental is individual rights. Generally, although the form matters, government power exercised to protect rights is good, and an individual freely violating others rights is bad. The key point is theres nothing inherently suspect about government power; it depends on how and for what that power is used.

What does this have to do with the coronavirus? Here is the key point, as put by philosopher Michael Huemer of the University of Colorado at Boulder: Any individual who is at risk of carrying a communicable disease, such as COVID-19, is posing a risk of physical harm to others when he interacts with them. This potentially justifies government intervention, depending on details. In some contexts, government best preserves liberty by stopping people from infecting others. Your rights to publicly breathe out your germs may end where another persons lungs begin.

(Huemer actually is a libertarian anarchist. But he points out that most libertarians advocate government, and he thinks a private analogue to government properly may impose quarantines in certain circumstances. Im not a libertarian but I broadly agree with Huemer about the just use of force. I also recommend a video from the Ayn Rand Institute on this topic.)

What this principle does not do is give us easy answers for specific cases. A great deal depends on how contagious and deadly the virus is. We continually impose all sorts of risks on others, as by accidentally passing along the flu or by adding another vehicle to a busy road. If we knew the new coronavirus were as deadly as other coronaviruses or even a common flu, we certainly would not be talking about shutting down a huge chunk of the economy because of it. Unfortunately, COVID-19 seems to be quite a lot more contagious and deadly than more-common viral diseases, although, due to lack of widespread testing, we are to a large degree flying blind.

If you were hoping for a pat answer for what specifically government should do here, Im sorry, I cant give you one. What I can say is that individual rights matter and should set the framework for how government responds. I do think that current circumstances warrant some restrictions of movement.

Meanwhile, we can cheer on the people working on the new antivirals, vaccines, and expanded testing that promise to make social distancing and government quarantines a thing of the past.

Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.

comments

More:

Armstrong: Liberty in the midst of a pandemic - Complete Colorado

Today, it is clearly being told not to go to the pub, as the Prime Ministers father has demonstrated. Perhaps, following Stanley Johnsons example, we shall soon start drifting back, just as people in 1940 soon stopped carrying their compulsory gas masks.

Although voluntary acceptance of unpleasant necessity is indispensable because the states power is limited, it is rarely if ever enough, or not for long. It has been pointed out that Boris Johnson is a natural liberal, even a libertarian, who is reticent to tell people what to do. However, in moments of genuine crisis, such instincts have had to be supplanted. Regulation and compulsion become necessary to back up voluntary action not to contradict it, but to supplement it. The best example in wartime is military service.

Until 1916, Britain relied on volunteers. But when volunteers dried up, conscription was accepted as necessary, not least because the families of volunteers wanted all other families to share the burden. I am proud of the fact that the Government today has begun by appealing to our sense of public spirit, and did not immediately turn to compulsion.

Perhaps the French are different: one French epidemiologist believes that they find it very difficult psychologically to accept social distancing, and certainly Macrons early appeals were ignored. Nevertheless, our own national tradition is not simply one of unfettered libertarianism. Even in the 19th century, when every Englishmans home was his castle, local health authorities had far more powers to interfere than anywhere on the Continent. There, troops were deployed to enforce mass quarantines; here, the sanitary inspector came to call.

Original post:

At war, Britons can be trusted to do the right thing - Telegraph.co.uk

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Senate passes .3 billion coronavirus bill, sending it to Trump As Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront MORE (R-Ky.) is taking on a familiar role as a thorn in the side of leadership as Congress barrels toward a surveillance deadline with no deal in sight.

Paul, a libertarian-minded Republican, is pushing for broader surveillance court reforms to be included as part of any bill that reauthorizes or extends the expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act, a 2015 law that overhauled the countrys intelligence programs.

"The time is ripe now. Its an inflection point. Youve got Republicans coming around to this," Paul said. "I think even the powers that be in the Senate, the Republicans that don't like it, they know that the president wants it, they know a lot of us who are reformers want it, and so I ultimately I think they acquiesce."

Paul isnt the only GOP senator pushing reforms as part of the USA Freedom debate Sen. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus MORE (R-Utah), for example, is also deeply involved but Paul has publicly emerged as the loudest voice within the Senate RepublicanConference to demand changes to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

His position puts him at odds with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Biden must first unite the party to defeat Trump House makes telework plans amid coronavirus outbreak MORE (R-Ky.), who has personally backed a clean extension of the three expiring provisions that relate to roving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and a controversial phone records program.

But with no deal in sight and the clock ticking, McConnell is likely to need cooperation from Paul to get legislation across the floor.

The GOP leader has yet to tee up any bill related to the expiring USA Freedom provisions. Instead, the chamber will take a procedural vote on Monday night on a mammoth energy package, with final passage of that bill expected on Tuesday or Wednesday. The surveillance deadline, March 15, is a Sunday; the Senate normally leaves town for the week on Thursday afternoon.

Paul says he won't support a short-term extension and appeared skeptical that he would back a larger deal that paired a USA Freedom extension with reforms to FISA, though he added that he could support some of the surveillance reforms if they get standalone votes, as amendments, for example.

Hes also pushing for an amendment vote to prohibit FISA warrants from being used against American citizens and to prohibit information obtained in the FISA courts from being used against a U.S. citizen in domestic courts.

Im not for any extension. Im for fixing it. ... I'll vote no on any extension, Paul said.

The dynamic is reminiscent of a 2015 debatein which Paul was able to use hardball procedural tactics to force a temporary lapse of expiring Patriot Act provisions, though supporters were able to pass the USA Freedom Act, which reformed the provisions, over Pauls opposition 36 hours later.

The 2015 drama included a middle-of-the-night showdown as McConnell tried to clear several short-term reauthorizations, only to be blocked by Paul and his allies in the surveillance fight. In a dramatic moment, McConnell the senior senator from Kentucky who had endorsed Pauls presidential bid asked first for a two-month extension of the expiring provisions, then for eight days, then five, then three, then two, but was blocked at every turn.

There are differences. Unlike with the current fight over the USA Freedom bill, in 2015, Paul explicitly threatened to filibuster the Patriot Act provisions as he made the surveillance fight a key pillar of his presidential campaign.

Asked if he would allow McConnell to speed up consideration of a short-term extension of the USA Freedom Act, Paul sidestepped, saying his focus was on getting FISA reforms.

I think there needs to be FISA reform, and Ill continue to insist on FISA reform, Paul said.

Spokesmen for McConnell didnt respond to a request for comment about talks with Paul or his staff about letting a bill move quickly. Procedurally, the GOP leader has options for how he moves a bill and can keep the Senate into the weekend to buy himself more time.

Republican senators acknowledge that they are in the dark about what Paul may or may not do as lawmakers try to figure out what they can get passed before March 15. Adding to the timing crunch, the House is expected to hold last votes for the week on Thursday.

He may decide to do that here. Unfortunately, I think thats a risky proposition because if something bad happens, I wouldnt want to be in a position of blocking the tools that are necessary to protect the country, said Sen. John CornynJohn CornynRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Surveillance deal elusive as deadline looms Hillicon Valley: Barr offers principles to prevent online child exploitation | Facebook removes misleading Trump census ads | House passes bill banning TSA use of TikTok MORE (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Hillicon Valley: Harris presses Facebook over census misinformation | Austin cancels SXSW over coronavirus fears | Surveillance deal elusive as deadline nears | FTC sends warnings to Cardi B, other influencers The Hill's Morning Report Presented by the APTA Now it's Biden vs. Bernie: no endorsement from Warren MORE (R-S.D.), the No. 2 Republican senator, argued that there was strong bipartisan support for a short-term extension.

So you just have to run the clock and win procedurally, but I would hope at least that we might be able to get our members to agree to a short-term extension, Thune said.

Paul told reporters that he thought Trump would support a roughly two-week extension. But Thune countered that it would take more time for Congress to agree to broader FISA reforms and that he didnt think that anything is lost by passing a two- or three-month extension.

The question is, does the president and do the people who dont want to see any extension at all make it difficult to get that done? he added.

What will be able to pass is unclear. House leadership is continuing negotiations on a larger deal, while lawmakers have also floated a one- to three-month short-term extension. As the deadline draws closer, so does the chance that lawmakers arent able to get a deal on anything, something leadership in both chambers had stressed they want to avoid.

If people want that hanging on their head, they can, said Sen. Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight As Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront Ratcliffe nomination puts Susan Collins in tough spot MORE (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about a potential lapse.

Paul is part of a group of progressives and libertarian-minded GOP lawmakerswho have warned for years that the FISA court does not provide enough transparency or privacy protections for those under surveillance.

They found broader support among Republicans in both chambers after Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz found 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions as part of the warrant applications involving Trump associate Carter Page.

Attorney GeneralWilliam BarrWilliam Pelham BarrRand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight Surveillance deal elusive as deadline looms Vulnerable Republicans dodge questions on support for ObamaCare lawsuit MORE pitched Senate Republicans late last month on a clean extension of the USA Freedom provisions while promising to use his own rulemaking authority to make changes to the FISA process.

But Paul appears to have a powerful ally in Trump, who railed against the Obama-era FBI during an interview this week with Fox News, saying that the FBI weaponized FISA and used it horribly.

Trump told Republicans, including Paul and McConnell, during a meeting at the White House that he would not extend the USA Freedom provisions without FISA reforms. Paul quickly touted the news on Twitter, during a TV interview and with a small gaggle of reporters back at the Capitol.

I think that helps. I think that the fact that hes been explicit in saying no clean reauthorization ... without significant reforms, that was very apparent, Paul told reporters. Even the attorney general, I think, has decided he better catch the train and modulate what comes out rather than just opposing it.

View original post here:

Rand Paul looms as wild card in surveillance fight | TheHill - The Hill

People on the left, right and center are constantly criticizing Donald Trump for his juvenile comments and behaviorand rightly so. The presidents inclination toward hurling insults at others is malicious and needlessly divisive.

Underlying the criticisms of the presidents words is an important principle that should be widely shared: treat everyone with dignity. The political class generally adheres to this ethic in the realm of rhetoric. While there are exceptions, they put an emphasis on civility, or at the very least, they pay lip service to it.

Their calculations change, however, when matters turn to government power. When debating policy, civility and respect for the individual plummets in importance. Abortion is one of the starkest examples.

After he suspended his campaign, a local editorial recently praised Mayor Pete Buttigieg for his campaign of civility. I find this incredible given the mayors position on allowing abortion up until birth. One is hard-pressed to find anything less civilized than abortion on demand.

This type of cognitive dissonance is par for the course. The political class gives a pass to people for holding to certain cruel and inhumane views, especially if the person acts presidential while defending such views.

The political class also commands us to respect the office of the president even if that means the president uses his power to launch undeclared wars, perpetuates the surveillance state or imprisons people indefinitely. In other words, you have to respect the office of the president, but it doesnt have to respect you.

Another phrase often thrown around is acting below the dignity of the office. In the context of the point I discussed above, this phrase is even more absurd. While words do have the power to harm others, many of the grade school level insults used by the president dont rise nearly to the harm done by some of this countrys worst moral outrages like abortion and endless war.

I imagine this double standard on civility is an effort to protect the legitimacy of the state. If people act civilly while in office, that lends a certain credibility to the presidency and other government positions. Of course, there is an objective standard of morality that cannot be ignored even if the president or any other elected official isnt being mean during his time in office.

Libertarians and other limited government types should do a better job highlighting the prevailing double standard on civility that is, to put it bluntly, a cancer on our politics. However, I would argue restoring civility aloneboth in word and deeddoesnt go far enough. I subscribe to Arthur Brooks point of view that aiming for civility itself is a garbage standard.

We should aim for something higherlove, defined as willing the good of the other. As libertarians, we believe people should be treated with respect because they have certain God-given (or inherent) inalienable rights. Thats fair as far as it goes, but such an idea only prescribes a moral code limited to what we should not do to othersnamely, dont initiate aggression against a person or their property.

Libertarians should will the good of others, not only by defending the non-aggression axiom but also by treating people with respect in conversation and debate and promoting choices that lead to human flourishing.

Frankly, this is an approach everyone should consider living out, including those working in government. If the political class were really concerned with upholding civility and dignity, they would prioritize love over power.

And maybe then we could respect the office of the president.

View post:

Our Standards on Civility are Trash - The Libertarian Republic

A funny thing happened after California's Assembly Bill 5, a law that strengthens the state's rules on employee misclassification, took effect on January 1. AB5 uses a three-pronged "ABC" test to clarify who counts as an employee versus an independent contractor, ensuring that companies can't skimp out on protections like paid sick days, overtime or workers' compensation. Gig workers long exploited by Big Tech celebrated a win, as correct employee classification will mean more take-home pay and the opportunity to unionize for benefits. But freelancers in creative fields like music, photography, and journalism erupted into outrage.

As it turns out, many freelancers opposing AB5 have joined forces with some strange right-wing bedfellows, and anchored their resistance to the law in solidly libertarian logic.

Those in the latter group have real reason for concern, because our corporate clients can simply blacklist in-state contractors rather than onboarding us as W-2 employees per the intention of the law. In other words, if a given company doesn't want to hire a California-based freelancer as a salaried employee, it can just stop commissioning assignments from anyone living in the state altogether. With media corporations like Vox choosing contractors located outside of California to save money and avoid regulation, according to complaints from freelancers, many California writers worry about losing income. It doesn't help that, under the legislation, writers were given a 35-article annual cap per outlet; unfortunately, journalism wages are so depressed that this number of assignments can't generate enough money to keep most of us afloat.

As a freelance writer myself, I watched eagerly to see how others in the industry would respond to this situation, which seemed like an opportunity to reckon with our financial precarity in a changing media landscape. How would we react to best safeguard our income: Organize to demand minimum rate standards per word and collectively refuse to work for less, so that we could survive on fewer but better compensated assignments? Campaign for policies like universal healthcare, free childcare, and affordable housing, which would make losing work substantially less catastrophic? Exert public pressure on the corporations that have greedily and callously dropped local contractors instead of hiring us fulltime?

As it turns out, many freelancers opposing AB5 have joined forces with some strange right-wing bedfellows, and anchored their resistance to the law in solidly libertarian logic. The American Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Press Photographers Association sought counsel from a Koch-funded, union-busting firm, the Pacific Legal Foundation, to sue California over AB5 in federal court this March.

The PLF's history includes defending private property from the Endangered Species Act and supporting landlord discrimination against renters. "ASJA and NPPA are making a huge mistake," says Larry Goldbetter, President of the National Writers Union, who says his union is the only freelancer group supporting the California law. I'm one of the few writers who vocally agrees with Goldbetter. I believe aligning with the PLF is a Faustian bargain, and an abandonment of any semblance of progressive principles. But the lawsuitand the larger movement to repeal AB5raises the question of just how committed some California freelancers are to such principles in the first place. Raising further concern is the fact that many members of two new Facebook groups, "Freelancers Against AB5" and "California Freelance Writers United," share articles from libertarian-leaning publications like The Federalist and Reason.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

To what extent this attitude predated AB5 is difficult to determine. But prior to the swift, impassioned opposition to the law that coalesced online in the past few months, there existed little political organizing among freelance writers against the serious problemslow rates, bad contracts, and late paymentsthat plague our industry. In contrast to staff writers, whose unionizing efforts have recently increased, contractors tend to envision ourselves as free agents, and often to our own detriment.

Now, one of our first large-scale attempts at political mobilization, resisting AB5 (and delaying New Jersey's version, Senate Bill 4204), potentially comes at the expense of rideshare drivers, delivery people, strippers who sued to be recognized as employees, janitors, nail techs, health and childcare workers, and others who materially benefit from labor reform like AB5 and similar policies combatting misclassification.

It would be great to see more than a small handful journalists publicly and vociferously defend the portions of AB5 that help other types of gig workers.

This lack of labor solidarity is likely rooted in the ways freelance creatives understand our jobs and identities. In a bid for legitimacy, we often emphasize how our specialized, professional skills elevate us to something better than lowly employees. We have careers we've spent years building, the argument goes, while Uber drivers just have temporary, throwaway gigs. The ego-preserving myth that we're "small business" entrepreneurs rather than predominantly members of the working-class who sell our labor as piecework has its appeal.

Yet almost all of us, from Postmates and Doordash couriers to journalists and transcribers, work for diminishing wages and must absorb the full cost of health insurance. Most of us can't predict our income from year to year or even month to month. Some earn less than $5 per hour. But for many self-employed creatives, these realities conflict with the image of the successful professional that we like to project to the public, andlet's face itto ourselves. Clients inhabit a position of power over us, not unlike the shop floor bosses of yore, and we make allies with them at our own risk. Employers save approximately 30% in labor costs by using contractors, so it's no surprise that media companies would rather blacklist us and look to exploit labor in less regulated states than cough up money for benefits. Why not direct our mass ire at themthe entities actually withholding jobs to safeguard their own bottom lineinstead of at unions?

It would be great to see more than a small handful journalists publicly and vociferously defend the portions of AB5 that help other types of gig workers. If freelancers do win the case against labor reform in California and other states planning similar legislation, I hope we would use the political momentum to forge alliances with gig workers in different industries and stand together against corporate avarice. It's one thing to advocate improving the law; AB5 certainly needs tweaking, and jettisoning the arbitrary 35 article cap for writers is a good place to start. But it's another thing entirely to sidle up to Big Tech, Republican politicians, and firms like PLF, and to defend our work using the capitalist ethos of "individualism." The only way forward is to put solidarity before self-interest. Once we cede basic leftist values, what else will we give up?

Original post:

Freelancers Shouldn't Betray Other Gig Workers By Allying with Anti-Union Opponents of AB5 - Common Dreams

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffDems unlikely to subpoena Bolton Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus MORE (D-Calif.) says Democrats are making progressin their negotiationsover the reauthorization of a key surveillance bill, stating Tuesday that they areworking to includemore privacy protections.

Intraparty rifts have emerged in recent weeks as some progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans push toinclude additionalprivacy protection amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), while others argue that a clean reauthorization billhas a better chance of making it through the Senate.

Schiffsays he and his staffhave been working the House Judiciary Committee as well as Reps. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenTrump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill MORE (Calif.) and Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalBiden surge calms Democratic jitters House passes .3 billion measure to fight coronavirus Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms MORE (Wash.) twoJudiciary Democrats who have pushed for more protections inan effort to get the bill passed by March 15. That's the deadline to extend three expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Actthattouch onroving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and a controversial program that allows the U.S. government to request access to phone metadata.

"We're trying to find as much common ground as we can," Schiff told The Hill. "We are trying to incorporate even more privacy protections in the hopes that we can get to an agreement in a timely way."

Schiff said some of Lofgren's amendments are being considered, including an amicus provision that would add an outside advocate for every FISA case in which an American is targetedas well asmake it illegal for the government to collect a U.S. citizens metadata.

"We're looking atexpanding the amicus provisions. We are lookingat limiting the period of attention to business records, what the business records provision can be used for,making sure thatyou can't use the business records to get things you would need a court order for in the criminal context,limiting the use of geolocation data or their usage oflocation information," Schiff said.

House Democrats last week were forced to pull their bill in the Judiciary Committeeand postpone a markup afterLofgrenthreatened to force votes on several FISA-related amendments. So far, a new markup has not been announced.

Schiff indicated an understanding has been reached on the issue of metadata butsaid they are still figuring out other issues like the amicus provisions.

"We're trying to figure out what's the capacity of the amicus but also how toweed out those cases that are truly routine that don't present any novel issues, making sure that that's a real distinction," he said.

He said one area of disagreement is whether some provisions could overly constrain the gathering of intelligence.

"Part of the issue is whether we use the FISAprocess to impose constraints that are not even present in the criminal law process, and that is a philosophical difference that may be driving some of the division on particular provisions," he said.

Jayapal, when asked about the state of negotiations, also saidthere'smore work to be done.

"So far, we are just not there, but we are continuing to talk and hope to see new proposals that address the areas we have raised," Jayapal said, adding that she too hopes to reauthorize by the deadline.

The debate has also engulfed Republicans, with GOP members clashing as well on whether they should have a clean reauthorization bill or overhaul it to include new protections.

Libertarian Republicanssuch as Sens.Rand Paul(R-Ky.) andMike Lee(R-Utah) arepushing forsweeping reforms.

Still, most Republicans are also pushing for additional protections, pointing tothe use of a wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.

Federal officials suspected Page of working as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia during the 2016 presidential election, particularly after he made a trip to the Kremlin in July of that year when questions were already swirling about the campaigns ties to Moscow.

They say the extensive review of the 2016 FISA process by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz aids their case. While he did not find evidence to suggest political bias impacted the FBIs decision to open the counterintelligence probe and concluded that the FBI had an authorized purpose for the inquiry, he did find17 significant errors or omissions in the surveillance warrant applications for Page, dating back to 2016.

Trump is also involved.He is expected to meet with key Republican allies in the House and Senate Tuesday afternoon to discuss the matter.It is unclear where Trump will stand onit.

Rep. Chris StewartChristopher (Chris) Douglas StewartSchiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill Trump shakes up Justice Department, intelligence community John Ratcliffe back under consideration by Trump for top intel job MORE (R-Utah), a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, also said he wants to outside advocatesas well as a transcriptof the court proceedings. If Democrats include such provisions, among a few others, then he believes Republican will also support the bill.

"The question is, will the White House support it? I think we'll know later on this afternoon," Stewart added.

Trumphas told congressional allies that he will not accept a clean reauthorization bill, as Attorney GeneralWilliam Barrand GOP leadership are said to support a position that is at odds with what Barr is said to have told senatorsearlier this month.

As the debate continues, some senatorshave stated their supportfora short-term extension to iron out the rest of the differences.

Schiff, meanwhile,indicated that he believes some Republicans are taking their push too far.

"We're open to any general policy proposals for reform. We are not open for politicizing this or using the bill to make partisan statements, and that's sort of where many Republicans are at the moment,"Schiff said.

Read more:

Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill | TheHill - The Hill

The Senate on Thursday easily passed more than $8 billion in funding to fight the coronavirus, sending the measure to President TrumpDonald John TrumpAs Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront Republicans, rooting for Sanders, see Biden wins as setback Trump says Biden Ukraine dealings will be a 'major' campaign issue MORE, who is expected to sign it.

Senatorsvoted 96-1on the bill, which was finalized and cleared the House the day before.

The bill provides $7.76 billion to agencies combating the coronavirus. It also authorizes another $500 million in waivers for Medicare telehealth restrictions, bringing the total figure greenlighted under the bill up to $8.3 billion.

Included within that is $2.2 billion to help federal, state and local public health agencies prepare for and respond to the coronavirus, including funds for lab testing, infection control and tracing individuals who might have had contact with infected people.

The Senate's passage caps off a weeks-longsprint to get emergency funding through Congress amid growing concerns about a widespread outbreak within the United States.

There have been 99 U.S. cases spread among 13 states, and 10 people have died, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Trump administration sent its emergency request to Congress on Feb. 24, less than two weeks ago. The initial $2.5 billion amount, only half of which would have been new funding, was criticized by Democrats and some Republicans as being too low.

By late last week, the bipartisan group negotiating the deal were looking at between $6 billion and $8 billion, sources told The Hill. By Monday that had climbed to $7.5 billon, and the final figure ended up being slightly higher.

But talks appeared stuck as late as Wednesday morning over the issue of vaccine affordability.

Democrats had pushed for language in the bill that would require any coronavirus vaccines or treatments developed by private companies with federal funding to be priced affordably. But Republicans had argued that could discourage drug companies from investing in potential cures and vaccines.

A source told The Hill that there was also discussion at a leadership level about ensuring Medicare would fully cover copay for a vaccine, but the idea was rejected by Republicans. Government health care experts have said a vaccine is a year to 18 months away.

The bill does state that the Health and Human Services secretary may take measures to assure those products are affordable.

Democrats also touted the inclusion of $300 million for purchasing vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. A House Democratic aide said the carveout would help ensure that "when a vaccine is developed, Americans can receive it regardless of their ability to pay."

The bill did face one final hurdle on Thursday in the form of Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulAs Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront Republicans, rooting for Sanders, see Biden wins as setback Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms MORE (R-Ky.). The libertarian-minded GOP senator wanted to use money from foreign aid accounts to offset the billions in coronavirus spending, but senators easily set aside his amendment. Paul was the lone senator to vote against the final measure Thursday.

"I think that we should not let fear or urgency causeus to lose our minds," Paul said ahead of the vote, "and causeus to act in an irresponsible fashion."

Continued here:

Senate passes $8.3 billion coronavirus bill, sending it to Trump | TheHill - The Hill

Griffiths is a contributing writer.

While the Democratic contest was quickly condensing into a two-man race, 18 minimally known presidential aspirants were convening for a sprawling discussion on Wednesday.

Though billed as a debate among independents, organizers said the gathering was really more an intervention on a broken system a moment to give candidates on the margins an opportunity to rail against the Republican and Democratic duopoly, and to show how rivals can discuss policies more civilly than the polarized shouting that marks so much political discourse.

"One thing that's clear is that the political system we have right now is not serving us well. Worst of all, it doesn't even allow for straightforward solutions to be part of the conversation. That's why we're creating this platform for a new national dialogue," said Christina Tobin, who created the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, which staged the livestreamed event at a hotel in downtown Chicago.

To create a more comprehensive discussion and a more thoughtful tone, where sound bites were not necessary for candidates unspooling views that stretched across the ideological spectrum, Tobin moderated a pair of debates among nine candidates each both of them lasting three and a half hours.

"There's a large and growing political reform wave that is slowly but surely winning transformational changes at the local level, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream political coverage. It's past time for democracy itself to be part of the national conversation," said Eli Beckerman, founder of Open The Debates, the debate's co-host.

Though the debate included topics that ranged from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to mandatory vaccinations, the conversation largely focused on political reform and the obstacles third-party and independent candidates face nationwide -- starting with the fall presidential debates.

"Democrats and Republicans will stop at nothing to squash any other voice from being heard," said Libertarian Jo Jorgensen. "It's how they stay in power. What most Americans don't realize is that the debate commission is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican and Democratic parties."

While venting frustration at rules that restrict access to the nationally televised debates, candidates also deliberated the finer points of an array of other proposals for making the political process more democratic and representative of the national will: ranked-choice voting, the rival alternative called approval voting, efforts to make it easier for partisan outsiders to get on the ballot, public financing of campaigns, regulating money in politics and various plans for altering the rules of the Electoral College.

"Our country is in crisis. But it's not the first time we've ever been in crisis. I've spent my career teaching American history. And every time that we have a period of crisis we also have a period of creativity, where lots of new ideas pop up, and many of those ideas pop up from third parties," said American Solidarity Party nominee Brian Carroll.

"I think we need more transparency in our current system first, and more options to be used at the local level. We need to really think this through," Libertarian Erik Gerhardt said in urging a go-slow approach to a nationwide refashioning of the election system,.

The debate was notable for how infrequently the candidates talked beyond their two-minute limits, interrupted one another, spoke out of turn or made a disparaging comment about somebody else on stage.

Organizers made an effort to exclude dozens of people who say they're running for president on the true margins of reality. More than two-dozen people qualified for an invitation because they are seeking the nominations of one of the five parties that have primaries and are on the ballot in at least two states Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green and Constitution or are independents running the bureaucratic traps to get on the ballots of at least two states.

The candidates with hope of gaining some traction for their cause often point to a recent USA Today survey in which 65 percent said they support "making it easier for third-party and independent candidates to run for office."

Independent Mark Charles, a member of the Navajo Nation, said he thought the event provided "a dialogue that our nation's simplistic two-party system does not know how to have."

Tobin said she hopes the event is the beginning of a tour of open presidential debates that are inclusive and focused on solutions. FEEF has not announced when or where a second event might take place.

http://www.youtube.com

http://www.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Link:

Civility and pleas to be heard mark debate among 18 marginal candidates - The Fulcrum

Mar 7th 2020

ON AN ICY late evening in Boston, on March 5th 1770, an angry mob advanced on a dozen redcoats standing outside the citys customs building. Ignoring the pleas of the British officer present, Captain Thomas Preston, the Bostonians hurled razor-edged oyster shells and blocks of wood and ice in the darkness, knocking one soldier off his feet. He fired back, prompting several others to do likewise before Preston, despite having been clubbed in the mle, ordered them to stop. The soldiers retired, leaving three men dead in the snow and several wounded, two of whom died shortly after.

To ascertain what had gone wrong and who was to blame for the bloody massacre, there followed the most forensic series of investigations of the colonial period. It led to and included the trials of Preston and eight of his men for murder, at which scores of eye witnesses were cross-examined by the sharpest legal minds. The defence team for the soldiers included John Adams, a future president, and called 52 witnesses. The testimonies were contradictory. Some claimed Preston had ordered the soldiers to shoot. Most described the British retaliating under severe provocation; given the noise, darkness and confusion it was hard to be sure of anything.

Two of the redcoats were convicted of manslaughter and had the letter M seared into their thumbs. The rest were acquitted. Facts are stubborn thingswhatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, said Adams in his defence of the soldiers. In a later diary entry, displayed in a fine anniversary exhibition at the Massachusetts Historical Society, he determined that the verdict of the jury was exactly right.

That is not a view with which many of those who gather to watch Bostons annual re-enactment of the riot this week would concur. An idea of the massacre as an act of imperialist terror which provoked the crisis, five years later, after which this column is named is one of Americas most popular historical myths. This reflects a disinformation campaign that began directly after the violence and has continued, one way or another, ever since. At a time when the political use of history is proving especially contentiousfollowing the impeachment row and another over the New York Timess 1619 Project, which aims to reframe the American story around racismthe Boston Massacre is an instructive example.

Bostonians antipathy towards the 2,000 British troops sent to the city in 1768 has also been exaggerated. A new book by Serena Zabin documents many family ties between the armed forces and civilian population (it helped that Boston had a surfeit of women). Nonetheless, the garrison offended the libertarian zeal of the Bostonian elite, whose members duly seized on the riot for propaganda value. A cartoon engraved by Paul Revere depicted the redcoats as sneering killers, Preston as their apish cheerleader and the customs office as Butchers Hall. An annual Massacre orationthe precursor of this weeks re-enactmentwas launched a few months after the redcoats acquittal. Adams declined to give the third oration on the spurious ground of old age (he was 37). Yet he had in a way facilitated this burgeoning distortion through his own economy with the truth. He had taken pains to absolve regular Bostonians of any blame for the violence, instead attributing it to a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and molattoes, Irish teagues. Based on sketchy evidence, he blamed one of the victims, a black sailor called Crispus Attucks, in particular.

This had unforeseen consequences. Eighty years later Attucks was embraced by black abolitionists in Boston as the first martyr of the American revolution. When it was put to them that the riot was not the revolution and there was scant evidence for Attuckss lead role, they had only to cite Bostons orations and Adamss defence. A Bostonian paramilitary group, precursor to black units in the Union army, was called the Attucks Guards. A grand monument to Attucks was raised in Boston Common in 1888. Dedicating it, the Irish nationalist poet John Boyle OReilly tied Attucks to freedom struggles everywhere: We honour a shrine unfinished, a column uncapped with pridewhen Crispus Attucks died.

Attucks remains popular with black activists. In the civil-rights era, schools were named after him. Recent victims of police brutality and the group they inspired, Black Lives Matter, have been compared to him. White activists also recall the massacre. During its re-enactment in 1975, protesters against Massachusettss then policy of busing black children to affluent schools collapsed in the streetto assert that they were also victims of tyranny.

This saga holds several lessons. Libertarian ideals were the intellectual basis for the revolutionary struggle, yet a distorting lens through which to understand almost any isolated episode of it. Their epic force (illustrated in the massacres early commemorations: the 1775 oration was delivered by Joseph Warren, months before his death at Bunker Hill, in a toga) proved irresistible from the start, however. This politicising of events has in turn fuelled a rich American tradition of mobilising history to score points.

The Timess 1619 Project (named after the year Africans were first brought to North America) is not only a corrective to that tradition, but part of it. It has been criticised for being partial and containing inaccuracies. It also downplays the contribution of African-Americans to Americas struggle to live up to the founders vision; and the inspiration many of them have found in it. African-Americans were participants in the Boston Massacre and, in one of the first states to restrict and then abolish slavery, beneficiaries of the events it helped set in train. In the figure of Attucks, they also found an unlikely inspiration in massacre propaganda.

Sticklers for historical accuracy have much to complain of here. Yet the incontestable fact of the massacre offers consolation. In 18th-century Boston, justice and the rule of law prevailed over politics and the mob. Perhaps even more than ideas of freedom, they are Americas foundation. May Adamss successors remember it.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Legends of the slaughter"

Read the original here:

Talking about a revolution - The Economist

The field is set for May as the deadline to file for elected office passed Monday night, and there will be contested races all throughout the ballot.

Two city council seats in Norfolk will be challenged by multiple candidates.

In the first ward, three candidates will compete for the seat held by Dick Pfeil, who is not seeking reelection. Those three are Christopher L. Moore, Juan E. Sandoval and Kory Hildebrand. In the second ward, four candidates have filed for Jim Langes seat: Frank Arens, Bill Hattery, Carl Weiland and Randy Dee. The top two vote-getters in each ward in May will advance to the general election in November.

At least two candidates will advance to the general election in the race for Madison County commissioner. Republicans Eric Stinson and Chris Thompson will compete in their partys primary, while Libertarian Zak Hookstra is running unopposed in that party. No Democratic candidate filed for the seat. Incumbent Christian Ohl declined to run for another term.

Three area state legislative seats will be contested between incumbent and challenger. Sen. Joni Albrecht of Thurston will face Sheryl Lindau of Wayne in District 17. The district covers Wayne, Thurston and Dakota counties. Sen. Lynne Walz of Fremont is being challenged by David Rogers of Fremont in District 15, which covers Dodge County. In District 43, which covers a large swath of North Central Nebraska, incumbent Tom Brewer of Gordon will be challenged by Tanya Storer of Whitman.

A Norfolkan also is throwing his hat into the race for the U.S. Senate. Dr. Daniel Wik, who was previously the Democratic nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2016, has filed in the Democratic primary for this years Senate race.

Dr. Wik, a pain management physician, faces a crowded field, with seven other candidates competing in the Democratic primary.

Other contested races include:

Four candidates will run for three seats on the Norfolk Public Schools board of education: incumbents Arnie Robinson and Sandy Wolfe and challengers Jenna Hatfield and Brenda Carhart.

Four candidates will run for three seats on the Elkhorn Valley board of education: incumbents Tyler Tegeler and Jenny Schutt, both of Meadow Grove, and challengers Sam Johnsen and Lucas Negus, both of Tilden.

Five candidates have filed for two seats on the Battle Creek City Council: incumbent Brent Nygren and challengers Chris Prauner, Nicole Schacher, Dave Trudeau and John Hrabanek.

Four candidates will compete for three seats on the Tilden City Council: incumbents Travis Rutjens and Darrell Wyatt, along with challengers Lisa A. Meyer and Terry James.

Patti Gubbels of Norfolk will run against Mike Goos of Columbus for a seat on the state board of education. The seat is held by Rachel Wise of Oakland, who has declined to run for another term.

Timothy Miller of Norfolk is challenging incumbent Jeff Scherer of Beemer for an at-large seat on the Northeast Community College board of governors.

Four races for seats on the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District board of directors are contested. Those include seats for subdistrict 1, between incumbent Aaron Zimmerman of Pierce and challenger Jay Reikofski of Foster; in subdistrict 2 incumbent Mark Hall of Norfolk is being challenged by Lee Klein of Norfolk; in subdistrict 4 Rod Zohner of Battle Creek and Michael Fleer of Battle Creek will vie for an open seat and Randy Ruppert of Fremont will challenge incumbent Gary Loftis of Craig in subdistrict 7.

Dennis Bridge of Royal and Cody Frank of Brunswick are running for an open seat on subdistrict 5 on the Upper Elkhorn NRD board of directors.

Incumbent Barry DeKay of Niobrara will be challenged by Aaron Troester of ONeill for a seat on the Nebraska Public Power District board of directors.

Several races, however, will proceed to May and November with no official opposition.

That includes Norfolk Mayor Josh Moenning, who is running for his second term.

Mike Flood, a Norfolk attorney and business owner, will run unopposed for the Nebraska Legislature to represent District 19, which covers Madison County. Flood, who previously served two terms in the Legislature, is running to replace Sen. Jim Scheer, who is ineligible because of term limits. Sen. Tom Briese of Albion will be running unopposed for a second term in District 41, which includes Boone, Antelope and Pierce counties.

Norfolk City Council incumbents Gary Jackson and Thad Murren also will advance with no opposing candidates.

In other uncontested races:

Jeremy Pochop, Toby Thompson and Sean Lindgren are running for three seats on the Battle Creek board of education. Pochop and Thompson are incumbents.

Eric L. Stone, Becky Wallin and Ginger Buhl-Jorgensen are running for three seats on the Newman Grove board of education. Wallin and Buhl-Jorgensen are incumbents.

Madison City Council incumbents Paul Kellen and Robert Fite are running unopposed to another term.

Donovan Ellis, Nicole Sedlacek, Arlan Kuehn, Gene Willers and Dirk Petersen are running unopposed in their respective districts for the Northeast Community College board of governors.

Cris Elznic is running unopposed to another term on the Newman Grove City Council.

Robert Huntley, Jerry Allemann and Matt Steffen are running unopposed for reelection to Lower Elkhorn NRD subdistricts 3, 5 and 6.

Russell Schmidt, Chris A. Johnson, Marcel Kramer, Carolyn A. Heine and Curtis Armstrong are all running unopposed to continue their terms on the Lewis & Clark NRD board of directors.

Karl Connell, Jack Engelhaupt, Randy Klawitter, Raymond Naprstek, Brian Kaczor, John Janzing and Donald Holtgrew are running unopposed to continue their terms on the Lower Niobrara NRD board of directors.

Leonard Danielski and Greg Wilke are running unopposed to another term on the Middle Niobrara NRD board of directors, while Tim Nollette is running for an open seat.

Roy Steward, Curtis Gotschall, Gene Kelly, Gary Bartak and Keith Heithoff are running unopposed to continue their terms on the Upper Elkhorn NRD board of directors. Arthur Tanderup is running unopposed for an open seat in subdistrict 6.

In the races for federal office, Republican Ben Sasse faces a challenge within his own party from Matt Innis of Crete. In addition to Dr. Wik, seven other Democrats have filed as well: Dennis F. Macek, Chris Janicek, Larry Marvin, Angie Philips, Alisha Shelton, Andy Stock and Gene Siadek.

In the first congressional district, Republican incumbent Jeff Fortenberry is unopposed in the primary, as is Libertarian challenger Dennis B. Grace. Democrats Kate Bolz of Lincoln and Babs Ramsey of Bellevue will compete in their partys primary.

In the third congressional district, incumbent Republican Adrian Smith faces a slew of challengers: Larry Bolinger, William Elfgren, Justin Moran and Arron Kowalski. Democrat Mark Elworth Jr. and Libertarian Dustin C. Hobbs face no opposition in their partys primaries.

Here is the original post:

Plenty of contested races on the ballot this year - Norfolk Daily News