Category Archives: Libertarian

The Stark County Board of Elections denied to certify two candidates in the race the 7th Congressional District due to petition signature issues. However, the Knox County Board of Elections later Monday said it had designated 10 signatures as being invalid in error. And a Libertarian candidate has sought the Stark County boards reconsideration.

CANTON As of Monday, U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Lakeville, was the only candidate for Congress to represent the 7th Congressional District on the March 17 primary ballot.

On Monday morning, the Stark County Board of Elections certified a ballot that didnt include the names of the Democratic and Libertarian candidates for Congress representing the 7th. The board staff said they had failed to submit enough valid signatures.

However, a Knox County elections official said her office had mistakenly designated 10 signatures submitted by a Libertarian candidate as invalid. Brandon Lape, 38, of Danville Monday afternoon filed a formal request for the Stark County Board of Elections to reverse its decision to leave him off the ballot.

Three men in three separate parties filed by the deadline last Wednesday to seek their partys nomination to be congressman for the 7th District, which includes most of Stark County.

They were Gibbs, Lape and Democrat Patrick Pikus, of Plain Township, who ran to be congressman for the same district in 2018.

Gibbs and Pikus, as members of major parties, had to submit 50 valid petition signatures by registered voters in their party who lived in the congressional district.

Lape, 38, of Danville and an IT worker, as a member of a minor party had to submit 25 valid petition signatures.

Pikus submitted the minimum of 50 but board staff found nine signatures to be invalid.

They said the signatures of three Tuscarawas County voters were invalid because they were on a page with Stark County voters on Pikus petition. Two signatures were by people not registered to vote, two signatures did not match voter registration records, one was not registered at the provided address and one lived outside the 7th Congressional District.

A message seeking comment was left on Pikus voicemail.

Because all of the people who signed Lapes petition lived in Ashland and Knox counties, the Ashland and Knox county boards of election verified the signatures. Because Stark County is the most populous county in the 7th District, the Stark County Board of Elections decided whose candidacies to certify.

Elections staff in Ashland and Knox counties initially invalidated 23 of 42 petition signatures submitted by Lape, leaving him with only 19, six short of the minimum. They found two signatures were by people not registered to vote, two were not registered to vote from the addresses provided and one signature was invalid because it was by the petition circulator. They found 18 were signed by voters who had voted in a recent Republican or Democratic primary, which made them ineligible to sign Lapes petition.

But Kim Horn, the director of the Knox County Board of Elections, said hours later her office mistakenly had concluded that 10 of candidate Lapes signatures were invalid. Horn said her offices voter registration database mistakenly designated several voters as Republican or Democratic voters when they hadnt voted in a Republican or Democratic primary since 2016.

By law, a person ceases to be affiliated with a political party if they dont vote in that partys primary for at least two calendar years.

Regine Johnson, the Stark County Board of Elections deputy director, said the board would choose whether to hold the hearing of reconsideration. If it takes place, it would likely happen by Jan. 13.

Stark County Commissioner Janet Weir Creighton, a Republican whos not up for re-election in 2020, said in an interview about the petition process this month that she always advises candidates to get more signatures than the minimum. And to have an official at party headquarters check the signatures against the rolls of registered voters.

"If youre required to get 50 good signatures, you dont get 50. You get more than what you need," she said. "If you cant follow these rules then I question why youe running for office. ... I would be sick if it cost my candidacy because of an error."

Creighton added the earlier petition filing deadline made it harder to get signatures as people were more focused on the holidays.

Write-in candidates have until Jan. 6 to file for the March 17 primary. They have to fill out a form but do not have to submit signatures. They are not listed on the ballot. In the Democratic primary for 7th Congressional District congressman, which now has no candidates, the write-in candidate who has at least 50 voters write in their name on the ballot and wins a plurality of the write-in vote would then become the Democratic candidate. That persons name would be listed on the ballot in November along with Gibbs name, said Travis Secrest, an administrative assistant for the Stark County Board of Elections

Non-partisan candidates who wish to run for Congress and be listed on the November ballot have until March 16 to file, said Secrest. They must submit at least 2,616 valid signatures by any registered voters in the district.

Candidates denied a place on the ballot due to signature issues are not eligible to run as write-in candidates or non-partisan candidates.

The Board also chose to leave off the ballot liquor options for Aldi Ohio in the Canton 6-C precinct and the Palace Theatre in Canton 2-B due to both entities submitting an insufficient number of valid petition signatures.

In addition, the Board also declined to certify three candidates seeking party committee positions due to an insufficient number of valid signatures. That included Patrick J. Glasgow, who was seeking to be the male member on the Libertarian Party State Central Committee for the 7th Congressional District. Glasgow would have been unopposed. And also denied a spot on the primary ballot were Gloria Ann Jeter of precinct Canton 6-C and Patrick Hoch of Canton 7-F for Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

Patrick Dorosky is now the only candidate for the Canton 6-C Stark County Democratic Party Central Committeeman. No one else sought the Canton 7-F seat. Eligible write-in candidates may seek the spot or if no one does Stark County Democratic Party

Chairman Samuel J. Ferruccio, whos also the chairman of the Stark County Board of Elections, can appoint any Democratic registered voter in Canton 7-F to fill the seat.

Reach Repository writer Robert Wang at (330) 580-8327 or robert.wang@cantonrep.com. Twitter: @rwangREP.

Go here to see the original:

Bob Gibbs to be unopposed in 2020; other candidates removed from ballot - Massillon Independent

They may not be the people who dominate your music playlists or the shows you binge-watch, but these individuals were major influences in politics, business and social causes.

These are some of the newsmakers we lost in 2019.

Luis Alvarez, 53; Former New York City detective who became the face of the fight to extend health benefits for 9/11 first responders.

In this undated file photo provided by the New York City Police Department, NYPD Detective Luis Alvarez poses for a photo. Alvarez, died on Saturday, June 29, after a three-year battle with cancer.

AP

RELATED: Detective who fought for 9/11 victims remembered for his bravery

Michel Bacos, 94; French pilot of a hijacked airliner in 1976 who refused to leave the plane while Jewish and Israeli passengers remained on board.

Jacques Chirac, 86; Influential French president who sought unified Europe.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, 68; 13-term congressman from Baltimore. Son of sharecroppers advanced to become chairman of the powerful House Oversight Committee.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., speaks during a luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2019. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

AP

RELATED: Congress bids tearful farewell to 'sweet Elijah' Cummings

Rep. John Conyers, 90; Served in House of Representatives from 1965-2017, making him the longest-serving African-American in congressional history.

Rep. John Dingell, 92; His 59 years in the House was the longest run in history.

Rep. Paul Findley, 98; Helped write the War Powers Act, which requires the president to give Congress 48 hours notice before sending troops into combat.

Richard Hatcher, 86: As mayor of Gary, Indiana, was one of the first black mayors of a big U.S. city.

Lee Iacocca, 94; Spent 32 years at Ford Motor Company, but best known for turning around Chrysler during 14-year tenure.

David Koch, 79; Right-wing billionaire who, along with brother Charles, poured billions into influencing American politics. Was 1980 Libertarian vice-presidential candidate. Philanthropist donated mightily to arts and culture.

James Leavelle, 99; Detective was handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald and escorting him when Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald.

Lee Harvey Oswald, suspected assassin of JFK, shot to death at point-blank range by Jack Ruby in basement of Dallas police headquarters Nov. 24, 1963. Plainclothes officer to the left of him is Jim Leavelle in the white suit and Stetson.

Bob Jackson

Aleksei Leonov, 85; Russian cosmonaut was the first man to walk in space. Later revealed the walk nearly killed him because his suit bulked up, making it difficult to re-enter the spacecraft.

RELATED: First human to walk in space, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, has died

Sen. Richard Lugar, 87; Spent 36 years in the Senate. Led effort to destroy nuclear weapons stockpiles around the world

Rosemary Mariner, 65; First woman to command a U.S. Navy air squadron.

Mohammed Morsi, 67; Egypt's first democratically-elected president. Was ousted by the military in Arab Spring in 2011.

Robert Mugabe, 95; First president of independent Zimbabwe with an appetite for power was forced out by his party and military in 2017.

H. Ross Perot, 89; Ran for president twice, but his 1992 run gained rarely-seen traction for a third-party candidate, winning 19 percent of the popular vote.

H. Ross Perot died July 9 at the age of 89.

WFAA

T. Boone Pickens, 91; Powerful, colorful entrepreneur and investor in the oil and gas industries was also an environmentalist.

John Paul Stevens, 99; Served 35 years as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

William Doyle Ruckelshaus, 87; Resigned as deputy attorney general rather than carry out President Richard Nixons order to fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.

Cokie Roberts, 75; Political reporter for NPR then ABC News inspired generations of aspiring female journalists.

Paul Volcker, 92: Former Federal Reserve Chairman fought double-digit infation in the 1980s by raising interest rates to historic highs, triggering a recession.

Joseph Wilson, 69; American diplomat who challenged the claim by President George W. Bush that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. His then-wife Valerie Plame was subsequently outed as an undercover CIA agent.

Sources include The New York Times, Associated Press and Britannica..

Excerpt from:

Remembering the newsmakers we lost in 2019 - KREM.com

NEW YORK (WCBS 880) There's an unlikely alliance between the Libertarian and the Green Parties in New York State, both fighting new rules they think might box them out of future elections.

It's not often you see leaders of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party sharing a podium, but thats exactly what happened recently, according to WCBS 880s Steve Burns.

The Libertarian Party is pleased to partner with the Green, said Libertarian Party of New York Chairman Jim Rosenbeck.

Rosenbeck says the new rules set up by the Public Campaign Financing Commission are insulting to New Yorkers.

We find it to be a shameless attempt to limit public debate, he said.

In order to have full ballot status parties need to receive at least 50,000 votes in governor's races.

The new rules raise that threshold to a 130,000 votes, or 2% of total turnout whichever is higher.

Those totals have to be attained every two years instead of every four.

Green Party of New York Co-Chairman Peter Lavenia says they'll likely be knocked off the ballot in the next two years over the changes.

Were looking at this as an assault on democracy, he said.

The two parties are filing a joint lawsuit against the commission.

State lawmakers could reconvene and change the rules, though that prospect is looking increasingly unlikely with a deadline at the end of this week.

Read more:

Green Party, Libertarian Team Up To Fight New Election Rules - WCBS 880

While a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside of her body whenever that is possible, she should retain the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on December 8, 2019. It featured Walter Block arguing for the resolution and Kerry Baldwin arguing against it. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate. That means the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most groundmostly by picking up votes from the "undecided" categoryis victorious. Block prevailed by convincing 13.85 percent of audience members to change their minds. Baldwin was not far behind, picking up 12.31 percent of the audience.

Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a prolific author on Austrian economics and libertarian theory. He's the author of Defending the Undefendable I and II, among many other books.

Kerry Baldwin is an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. Her work can be found at MereLiberty.com and at the Libertarian Christian Institute.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett Raney.

Filaments by Scott Buckley https://soundcloud.com/scottbuckley Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported CC BY 3.0

Read more:

Libertarianism and Abortion: A Debate - Reason

MANCHESTER, N.H.Tulsi Gabbard wasnt present.

Not physically, at least. But in the small, half-filled Rex Theatre in downtown Manchester, it didnt seem to matter. While seven of her top Democratic rivals prepared to hit the stage in Los Angeles for the sixth primary debate, a group of Gabbards most ardent loyalists were glued to a large-screen projector, where a livestream of Gabbards face, fixed between panels of tulle wrapped in twinkling lights, beamed in from Washington, D.C.

I really wish I could be there to hug you, she said, to no one in particular.

Citing a conflicting House vote in Congress, the Hawaii Democrat wasnt in Manchester for her campaigns much-hyped party alternative to Thursday nights debate, for which she failed to qualify. The party, and the debate, came the day after Gabbard had set Washington ablaze by voting present on the two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, which occurred for only the third time in the countrys history.

Aides to Democratic presidential candidates often say the topic of impeachment rarely comes up on the campaign trail. Voters, the thinking goes, prefer asking about kitchen table issues, like jobs. But here, it was the first question.

My decision to vote present was a decision to actively protest this zero-sum mentality that rules over our politics today, the four-term congresswoman told a skeptical attendee of her vote on the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress.

On top of being a self-proclaimed act of protest, Gabbard explained, to delayed applause, her present proclamation was an attempt to stand for our people, our county, and our future.

Were going to continue to see this spiraling downward, she said.

During the two-hour event, Gabbards fiercest fans praised her dovish foreign and liberal domestic policy, a hallmark of her nearly year-long campaign, and asked whether she would ever ditch the Democratic Party, with which she frequently clashes. No, she strongly implied, brushing off naysayers who speculate she may launch a third-party bid, an idea that she has routinely shot down.

Still, at multiple points in the night, she praised nearly every other conceivable party, in addition to her own.

I appreciate the voice the Libertarian Party brings to this conversation, Gabbard said. It is necessary.

Richard Manzo, the vice chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, was in attendance, and had mixed reactions about Gabbards impeachment move.

I wish she would have taken a stance one way or another, Manzo told The Daily Beast. But it wasnt enough to change his likely primary vote on Feb. 11. Im leaning towards voting for her, he said.

Mark Colvin, one of Gabbards most passionate supporters who drove from Boston to see her video conference through the projector, had no such reservations. Shes the only one who got it right, he said about her stance. Shes a patriot.

Gabbard has made New Hampshire a top campaign priority in recent weeks, and there are early signs her work is resonating with segments of the electorate, particularly independent voters. As The Daily Beast recently reported, pollsters argue there is evidence to believe Gabbard is already poking holes at the independent bloc that helped sweep Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to victory here in 2016. In a Suffolk University survey conducted in November, Gabbard receives five times as much support among independents as she does among Democrats.

But Thursday nights set up hardly seemed poll-tested. In fact, the lines between substance and style frequently blurred, with campaign aides moonlighting as singers and poets, and a professional Trump impersonator taking cracks at the commander in chief.

At times, the vibe felt like multiple genres of YouTube were merging on loop: Gabbards sister Vrindavan, also known as V, performed a virtual hula dance, while Gabbard and her husband Abraham Williams reminisced about when they were first dating.

Looking forward to hearing your song later! Gabbard told a volunteer, one of several she publicly acknowledged from a lengthy roster. At one point, a guitarist with long curly blonde hair wearing a pink lei serenaded audience members.

Tul-seeeeee, Tulsi 2020, he sang to attendees, who clapped along enthusiastically. Everyone! Were backing Tulsiiiiii, shes the onlyyyyy choice.

If youre not sure if youre on keyI would say sing louder! Gabbards Deputy Campaign Manager Caitlin Rose Pomerantz instructed the crowd.

Shortly after, lyrics titled, We, The People appeared on the screen, replacing Gabbard. After that, her aide recited a poem with the identical name.

When we get bitter, thats when they win, Rose Pomerantz said. We are the people who are still alive inside.

See the rest here:

Tulsi Gabbard Beamed in to Her Debate Night Alternative Event - The Daily Beast

Back in the dark ages when mandatory seat belt use was relatively new in Indiana, I had a colleague who liked to say that she never nagged people about buckling up when they were riding with her. In fact, she never mentioned it to her passengers.

Why? she was inevitably asked.

Natural selection was her answer.

I like to use that story as a good analogy for what I consider proper government. She gives people the information needed to make good choices, sometimes offers incentives for making good choices and can even provide the mechanisms to make good choices easier. But if people insist on making poor choices anyway, well, thats on them.

Of course, our government driver (to continue the analogy) seldom stops when she should. She employs various coercive tactics to get those passengers in line. (Yes, I am being deliberate in the choice of pronoun; were talking about the nanny state, after all.)

Such as, buckle up or this car isnt moving. Or, if you dont buckle up, I will harangue you mercilessly for the whole trip. Or, the penalty for not buckling up, payable at the end of the journey, will be a hefty fee that I will send collectors out to get from your childrens children into the 10th generation.

In my experience, people who advocate for government solutions, and even bigger and more expensive government when those solutions fail to materialize, seldom have to justify themselves. They are merely following the spirit of the age, no explanations required.

But those of us who advocate government restraint or, heaven forbid, limited government, are always put on the defensive. We are either insensitive to human misery to the point of heartlessness or hopelessly ignorant of the need for immediate action to avert imminent disaster.

In all the response I get to these columns (thank you very much), by far the most common form of criticism is from readers who misinterpret, either carelessly or deliberately, the libertarian thrust of my government critiques.

I always mean, in those pieces, the least government necessary, which, believe it or not, was a founding principle of this country. They always insist I really meant, no government at all, then proceed to deliver the Gotcha! they think I deserve.

What about the fire department when your house is burning down, they will ask, or the police department when youre robbed? What about that pothole you want filled in?

Arent those all socialism, you self-serving hypocrite?

Actually, no, theyre not. They are legitimate government functions.

My favorite Gotcha! showing up in my email with tiresome regularity is, So, I guess youve refused your Social Security payments, huh?

No, I have not. Had I the opportunity to opt out and use the money for my own retirement investments, I would have done so. But participation was mandatory. To whom am I trying to prove what if I dont take money out of the system I was forced to put money into?

The tenet of libertarianism people seem to have the most trouble grasping, though it really should be the easiest, is that government legitimately tries to keep us from hurting each other but risks overstepping its bounds when it tries to keep us from hurting ourselves. Autonomy should be sacred.

So, I find myself having to explain that, no, I do not object to Gov. Eric Holcombs proposal to ban Hoosier motorists from using their cell phones while driving unless theyre hands-free.

There are rules for the road that are open to challenge on libertarian grounds. There is no reason to require me to use seat belts when driving or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle except to keep me from behaving stupidly.

But there are also rules that protect me from others stupid behavior, such as the one against driving while drunk.

Mandating hands-free-only cell phone use falls into the latter category. I am the one you might run into while youre fiddling with that stupid phone.

See? Simple.

Of course, there are a couple of potholes in the road an earnest libertarian should be aware of whenever he gives in and acknowledges that, yes, OK, fine, government should do this.

One is the maxim that by the time government acts, government action is usually beside the point. Most cellphones today have Bluetooth, and most new cars have systems that sync to it, so its likely that the moment you get behind the wheel your phone automatically become hands-free.

The other is that when government is given the legitimate inch, it will go the illegitimate mile. Setting reasonable speed limits is a legitimate function, but it requires local knowledge of local conditions. But few were shocked to see a national 55 mph limit that, for a time, was the most ignored law in America.

If Holcomb gets his way with cellphones, all sorts of distracted driving will be on the endangered list, everything from playing the radio to scarfing down those fries you got from the drive-through. Then dont be surprised if there are hefty fines for talking to your in-car companions and there are calls for hands-free nose-picking.

Government will always always, always, always go too far.

I know you might not believe that. But the evidence is plentiful if you choose to ignore it, thats on you.

I respect your autonomy.

And, you know. Natural selection.

Leo Morris is a columnist for Indiana Policy Review, a magazine published by the conservative think tank Indiana Policy Review Foundation, which is headquartered in Fort Wayne. Contact him at leoedits@yahoo.com.

Here is the original post:

Flashpoint: Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile - Terre Haute Tribune Star

You may love your CBD gummies from Verma Farms, but most of the CBD products you enjoy sit in a gray legal area. The laws are complicated and confusing, and the history is even more complicated and confusing. With the rising popularity of CBD gummies, and hundreds if not thousands of brands cashing in, the government has taken a very relaxed attitude toward the gray areas, as will likely continue until the full lift on prohibition of cannabis finally happens.

Hemp and its products were made illegal outside of medical use with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. It became prohibitively expensive and difficult to grow, harvest, or use any part of any hemp plant. At this time, all hemp plants were seen to be in the same category of marijuana plants, and there was little known about the difference between the types of hemp.

The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 made all use of marijuana completely illegal, and put it on the list of Schedule I Controlled Substances. Types of hemp were still undifferentiated, and all hemp plants were illegal to cultivate. The term, The War on Drugs, was coined by Richard Nixon in a press conference in 1971, and since then, the Federal Government has taken a hard-line stance on all things related to cannabis.

In 1996, California legalized marijuana for medical use. In 1998, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington followed suit. Over the next decade, states began to recognize the medical benefits of cannabis products. They all set up their own laws regulating the use, in defiance of the Federal Government, which still classified hemp and hemp products as a Schedule I controlled substance (this category is reserved for substances that have no medical value, come with significant health risks, and are highly addictive).

More and more states began decriminalizing marijuana. Prohibition had not been completely lifted in these states, but penalties were not as strict as they were before. States recognized the financial and social benefits of not imprisoning everyone who got caught with a small amount of the green stuff for their own personal use.

By 2012, Colorado and Washington voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults, with actual legal sales beginning in Colorado in 2014. They have seen major financial gains ever since, and Colorado reached $1 billion in tax revenue in just over four years. Crime rates have not been affected, as the bills opposers originally feared, and the benefits have far outweighed the cost.

As of 2019, 11 states have legalized the use of recreational marijuana for adults over 21. Medical use of marijuana is legal in 33 states. A total of 44 states are in direct defiance of federal law, but the Federal Government has decided not to pursue action.

Hemp has been a source of food, textiles, and building materials, for thousands of years. Historical references note its use in Ancient China and Rome as medicine. Early American settlers used hemp to make ropes, oil, and clothing. Even Henry Fords original Model T prototype was fueled by hemp.

The Marijuana Tax Act was likely a matter of corporate competition, and it became illegal in the US to use hemp for anything. What was once an important crop that nearly everyone grew and cultivated, became outlawed. By the 1970s, there was no distinctinction between the stuff people used for food, medicine, and fuel, and the stuff people used to get high.

With global warming becoming more of a reality every day, and solutions to the problems that come with this crisis few and far between, the interest in hemp is growing once again. Hemp is a crop that is easy on the earth. It acts as a biofilter that can clean the soil and the air in its surrounding environment. It is easy to grow, and is one of the most beneficial crops in existence.

Hemp is an excellent source of food, containing essential amino and fatty acids, it can be used to make almost any product that we use petroleum to make now, and it is an efficient source of energy storage. Food shortages, the non-renewable energy crisis, and rising medical costs, can all be mitigated with the hemp plant.

In 2014, the distinction was made between the marijuana plant and industrial hemp. Industrial hemp contains less than 0.3% THC, and cannot get anyone high. A bill passed through the Senate, allowing research to take place on industrial hemp under very restrictive circumstances.

Hemp farming became an important part of Kentuckys economy again, and in 2018, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell slipped an expansion of the legalization of farming industrial hemp into the Farm Bill.

This means that it is now legal to farm and cultivate industrial hemp, and manufacture hemp products. For certain farmers. Under certain circumstances. With special licensing. And under strict supervision. All CBD produced must be under the guidelines of the Farm Bill of 2018, and the USDA is now in charge of overseeing all regulatory processes related to the plant.

It took more than sixty years, and direct defiance from 44 states, to even begin to clarify key differences between marijuana and hemp. These clarifications have led to a few more gray areas. Now that the USDA is in charge of regulating the farming of hemp, the FDA needs to bring its policies into alignment. Which will likely take quite a bit of time.

As of right now, the FDA is in charge of regulating interstate commerce related to any CBD product marketed as a medicine, supplement, food, or cosmetic. It has determined that CBD cannot be added to food, and it recently released a statement indicating that it will pursue legislation against any company purporting CBD to treat, mitigate, or diagnose serious illnesses like diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimers.

Where does this leave CBD gummies? It seems as though they fit directly in the gray area. Which seems to be where most CBD products fit. 92% of cannabis businesses operate in the gray area. Only 4% are fully legal, and 4% are clearly violating the law.

Brands selling CBD gummies are in the gray area, but there are thousands of brands in it together. While the amazing health benefits of CBD gummies are apparent, it will likely be several years before they can be marketed as a supplement, or to treat medical symptoms. In the meantime, the best thing CBD companies can do, is use their blogs to educate people and point them in the direction of the research that backs their claims.

CBD gummy brands take heart! Legislation is moving fast, and changing in favor of the hemp industry every day.

Read more:

How CBD Gummies Gray Areas Should Be Handled - The Libertarian Republic

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has added two Republican presidential challengers to Donald Trump on the March 3 primary ballot, the organization said Friday.

The State Board -- composed of three Democrats and two Republicans -- voted unanimously to add Joe Walsh and Bill Weld to the ballot after requests from those campaigns, it said in a news release. North Carolina GOP had submitted just one name for the ballot -- Trump.

Other states have taken steps to prevent candidates from appearing on the ballot to challenge Trump, and South Carolina has canceled its GOP primary altogether.

North Carolina's State Board said it has the authority to place additional candidates on the ballot if at least three Board members find the candidate is "generally advocated and recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in North Carolina as candidates for the nomination by that party."

Walsh is a former congressman from Illinois who has been critical of Trump. Weld is a former Massachusetts governor.

Just unanimously confirmed to NC Republican Presidential ballot as nationally recognized viable candidate by @NCSBE, reversing yet another attempt to fix the primaries by @realDonaldTrump and state party bosses.

Why does Trump fear free and fair elections?

Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) December 20, 2019

The primary presidential ballot will also have 15 Democratic Party, 16 Libertarian Party, two Constitution Party and one Green Party candidate.

Originally posted here:

Trump To Have Two GOP Challengers On NC Primary Ballot - WFAE

Falling levels of trust in our public institutions have become the backing track for the demise of the progressive political project and the rise of populist strongmen who promise to take back control.

Government becomes a problem to be solved, a bubble, a swamp of compromised technocrats and bean-counters operating against the interests of hard-working common folk, the quiet Australians whose will for a simple life is constantly being frustrated.

One of the drivers of this collapse has been the impact of technological change on our body politic, the anger-driven echo chambers of social media, the fake news and disinformation, the increasingly sophisticated targeting designed to reinforce what we already think.

Numerous benchmark surveys, including Essentials own, document this decline, which tracks closely the destruction in traditional media models at the expense of these platforms.

But as two reports released in the past week show, when it comes to thinking through the impacts of technology on the future, government leadership is more important than ever.

The first, the governments response to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commissions digital platforms review, is to the point.

On one level the report, initiated as part of the deal to water down the media ownership laws that saw the Nine takeover of Fairfax, is an attempt by media giants to restore the natural order.

But somewhere along the way the ACCC inquiry became more than that. Someone inside the agency seriously put their minds around the existential challenges of Facebook and Google, setting out a detailed framework that would have ended the conceit the social networks did not carry responsibility as publishers.

While limited in scope to exploring the market dominance of the platforms as opposed to the broader social consequences of technological change, the inquiry positioned Australia as a world leader in grappling with the market power of big tech.

The governments response this week may fall short of realising the ACCCs ambition of enforceable standards, opting instead for the sort of voluntary codes that any industry lobbyist yearns, but the intent from the prime minister in launching the report is clear: The rules that exist in the real world need to exist in the digital world.

You can quibble with the ambition, and we have, but when a conservative government invests behind the ACCC to build its capacity to monitor the market operations of the platforms and get to the bottom of their algorithmic marketing model, something interesting is going on.

The second report is, if anything, even more ambitious in its vision of governments need to lead us through profound technological change. The Human Rights Commission discussion paper into AI technology calls for the establishment of rules around the way automated decisions and data-matching develop in Australia.

The report calls for all AI to be subject to scrutiny around its design and impact on users before it is unleashed on to the public, ensuring it complies with existing laws covering both direct and indirect discrimination.

Commissioner Ed Santow argues that human accountability cannot be automated and that facial recognition technology in particular needs to be tested and thought through before it is unleashed on the Australian public. And that this should be the role of a new government body, the AI Safety Commissioner.

In doing so, Santow is challenging some basic tenets of the information economy: that its OK to disrupt, move fast and break things; that the benefits of tech advancement outweigh its cost; and that the role of government is to adapt to change rather than step up and shape it.

Research that Essential has conducted around this report shows Australians are looking for government leadership on the issue, with the majority of the public concerned about the automating of decisions.

Santow argues that placing guardrails around how Australia develops AI will ultimately serve the national interest not just protecting citizens but also developing a uniquely Australian AI that is fair by design and can become a compelling global export.

But to get to that point, government needs to lead: not just being more assertive in taking on the recommendations of its expert bodies, but in the way it too uses its citizens information.

In an era of declining trust in government, it is hardly surprising that the My Health Record program has stalled, with millions of Australians not prepared to share their medical records, especially under a model where entrepreneurs would have been encouraged to access this data to innovate.

More profoundly, the failure of robodebt has reinforced every latent instinct that government is not to be trusted with sensitive information. That the first big government data-matching project was used to chase poor people deemed to have been overpaid says it all.

Imagine the difference in trust dividend if the first application had been to find people who had not claimed benefits they were entitled to and send them a cheque to make good; or to chase down unpaid super; or ensure workers were being paid the right amount of money.

The challenges of rapid technological change provide an opportunity for government to win back public trust, by setting rules that ensure technology serves the public interest and by being a best-practice custodian of our personal information.

As a social democrat thats what I want my government to be doing, regardless of its partisan colours. The alternative is a libertarian free-for-all that will only ensure the disruption, division, distraction and displacement of the times accelerates unabated.

Peter Lewis is executive director of Essential Media and the director of the Centre for Responsible Technology, a new initiative of the Australia Institute.

See more here:

The government must make sure technology serves public interest. The alternative is a libertarian free-for-all - The Guardian

Rep. Justin AmashJustin AmashThe Hill's Morning Report - Busy week: Impeachment, Dem debate and USMCA First-term Democrats push Amash as impeachment manager: report The 'Green' new deal that Tom Perez needs to make MORE (I-Mich.), who left the Republican partyover thesummer, reiterated his support for articles of impeachment during debate on the House floor shortly before the historic vote took place.

"I rise today in support of these articles of impeachment. I come to this floor not as a Democrat, not as a Republican but as an American who cares deeply about the Constitution, the rule of law and the rights of the people under our system of government," he said in his speech.

"Impeachment is not about policy disagreements or ineffective governance, nor is it about criminality based on statutes that did not exist at the time our Constitution was written. Impeachment is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency and ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law," he added.

Amash went on to say he believed it is lawmakers' "duty" to impeach President TrumpDonald John TrumpWhite House counsel didn't take lead on Trump letter to Pelosi: reports Trump endorses Riggleman in Virginia House race Lisa Page responds to 'vile' Trump attacks: 'Being quiet isn't making this go away' MORE, arguingheviolated the public's trust with his dealings with Ukraine andmisusedhis power for personal gain.

President Donald J. Trump has abused and violated the public trust by using his high office to solicit the aid of a foreign power, not for the benefit of the United States of America but instead for his personal and political gain, he continued.

His actions reflect precisely the type of conduct the Framers of the Constitution intended to remedy through the power of impeachment, and it is our duty to impeach him.

The Libertarian-leaning Michigan congressman has long been a vocal critic of Trump. He announced he was leaving the GOP in a July 4 op-ed in The Washington Post,saying was "disenchanted with party politics" and believed the president demonstrated impeachable behaviorbased on former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerSchiff: Trump acquittal in Senate trial would not signal a 'failure' Jeffries blasts Trump for attack on Thunberg at impeachment hearing Live coverage: House Judiciary to vote on impeachment after surprise delay MORE's report. The move sparked strong backlash from members of his former party.

The House is expected to pass two articles of impeachment one charging the president with abuse of power and a second pertaining to obstruction of Congress largely along party lines on Wednesday evening.

More:

Amash says it's Congress's duty to impeach Trump | TheHill - The Hill