Category Archives: Libertarian

The Liberty Conservative

Libertarian Lawmakers Criticize Trump Administration's Support Of Mandatory Minimum Policies The Liberty Conservative The two libertarian lawmakers have been long-time advocates for criminal justice reform. They feel that the Trump Administration under Sessions is clearly headed in the wrong direction on this particular policy, which will only serve to clog the ... AG Sessions Urges More Mandatory Minimums, Rand Paul Slams BackThe Libertarian Republic all 587 news articles »

Read the original:

Libertarian Lawmakers Criticize Trump Administration's Support Of Mandatory Minimum Policies - The Liberty Conservative

Phil Drake , pdrake@greatfallstribune.com Published 11:26 a.m. MT May 12, 2017 | Updated 14 hours ago

Libertarian Mark Wicks says voters have seen and appreciate his common-sense approach to issues.(Photo: TRIBUNE PHOTO/SEABORN LARSON)Buy Photo

Im going to give you an analogy: I see Mr. Gianforte as a luxury car. Its really smooth and comfortable getting down the road, but at the end of the day it just wants to be parked with the other luxury cars down at the country club. And I see Mr. Quist as a little half-ton pickup. Its shiny and bright, has a good sound system, but when you look underneath the hood its only got a six-cylinder, and when you start working, you lose the clutch and there it sits on the side of the road. Now me? Im the work truck. Im the guy that when you are pulled over on the side of the road and youre broke down, you want to see that big pickup pull up behind you that has the tow rope, the chains, the tools, everything to get the job done. And you know youre going to get home that night. So that is what I am asking you Montana, vote for me, send the work truck to Washington to get the work done. Lets quit playing these partisan politics and get something done for a change..

And with that, Mark Wicks described what he believes is on the line in this election in terms that many Montanans could relate to, and which for many was their first look at a third-party interloper.

The Libertarian Party candidates closing comments, now posted on YouTube as Mark Wicks Epic Closing Statement, came during an April 29 debate sponsored by Montana Television News with fellow candidates Republican Greg Gianforte and Democrat Rob Quist during a quest to fill the lone congressional seat vacated by Republican Ryan Zinke who resigned to become the U.S. secretary of the interior for President Donald Trump.

Now all Wicks has to do is garner enough votes in the Thursday, May 25, special election through a party that rarely raises more than a blip on the political radar but yet can serve as a spoiler for other parties in close races.

During the debate, Wicks, 47, played up being a working man, having several jobs and unable because of work commitments to take three-day weekends to go hiking with his wife, Beth, three daughters and a son who range in age from 5-18.

He said he decided to run because he felt the people were not being represented anymore.

I felt I had to step up and do something, he said, adding he didnt feel any better when he looked at who was running for the seat.

So I threw my hat in the ring, Wicks said.

On his webpage for office, he describes himself as Rancher. Family man. Writer. Army Reservist. Third-generation Montana and calls his run for office a David vs. Goliath campaign.

Wicks recounts something that his father, a World War II veteran, said that resonates with him.

He said that he had lived in the best times America would ever have to offer, Wicks wrote. That statement has always bothered me, and Im worried he might be right.

He said if America kept following a road of political correctness and denyingproblems, it will not have a better America for future generations.

I fear we are on the same road as the Roman Empire, which toppled because of largesse, moral turpitude and shortsightedness.

The three candidates, Republican Greg Gianforte, from left, Democrat Rob Quist and Libertarian Mark Wicks vying to fill Montana's only congressional seat await the start of the only televised debate ahead of the May 25 special election, Saturday, April 29, 2017, in Great Falls, Mont. (AP Photo/Bobby Caina Calvan)(Photo: Bobby Caina Calvan, AP)

Wicks said he farms and runs cattle on the ranch his grandfather started in 1913 near Inverness. He works with his family.

According to his website, Wicks had a passion for history in high school, which earned him a scholarship to Montana State University. He narrowed that focus to the history of aviation, then moved to a college in Oregon to study Aviation Technology Maintenance, with a stint in Sweden. In 1991, he joined the Army Reserves, where he served for two years before being diagnosed with a degenerative eye disorder, which he said makes his eyes sensitive to sunlight.

He returned to the family ranch.

Wicks said he has worked on Bakken drilling rigs, driven propane trucks, owned gift shops, sold family produce at farmers markets, and wrote a novel, Wrath of the Dodo, which looks at the family farm in a dystopia setting.

Wicks may be at a disadvantage in terms ofname recognition as Gianforte, a high-tech entrepreneur from Bozeman, is likely familiar with Montana voters from his unsuccessful run for governor in November. And Quist, who has performed statewide for decades as a musician and with the Mission Mountain Wood Band, also is well known in Montana.

A political observer gave Wicks little chance of winning the election, saying he has not received much public attention and has insufficient campaign financing to get his name and message out.

A third-party Libertarian candidate, even in Montana, is almost always relegated to single digits and often low single digits in the percentage of votes cast, said Jeremy Johnson, associate political science professor at Carroll College. I dont expect Wicks to be a factor in the race unless Gianforte and Quist run almost even against each other.

Johnson said Wicks, presumably, will take more of the vote away from Gianforte than Quist if this were a strictly Republican-Democratic race, but that is not assured.

Mark Wicks, standing, addresses Montana Libertarians gathering for their partys nominating convention on March 11 in Helena.(Photo: AP File)

I expect Wicks to receive about the same share of the vote as most Libertarian candidates who have limited name recognition in previous elections have received. Its an uphill battle to effectively challenge the two major political parties in Montana as well as throughout the United States"

Wicks said he is in the race to win and calls Quist the spoiler in his election.

In November, Zinke, a Republican, was re-elected to the congressional seat with 56 percent of the vote. Democratic challenger Denise Juneau received 40 percent and Libertarian Rick Breckenridge, who entered the race late due to the death of Libertarian candidate Mike Fellows, got 3 percent of the vote.

For comparison, in the secretary of state race, Libertarian Roger Roots got 3 percent of the vote.

Robert Saldin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Montana, puts Wicks chances of winning at zero percent.

But he has an opportunity to get out the Libertarian message and to demonstrate that his party has a future in Montana politics after longtime standard bearer Mike Fellows' death, he said. He had a very strong showing in the debate.He could also tip a close race to Quist.

Saldin said he expected Wicks to get in the mid-single digits is most likely on May 25. High single digits would be a fantastic showing for him, he said.

He also said that Wicks helps Quist, adding not all Libertarian votes would otherwise go to Gianforte because some would go to Quist and some wouldn't vote for either major party candidate.

But Libertarians definitely hurt Republicans and help Democrats, he said.

Johnson noted that from what he gathered, Wicks has aligned himself ideologically much closer to Gianforte than Quist.

The Libertarian Party, now the third-largest political party in the United States, was founded in 1971 in Colorado Springs, Colo., by David Nolan, a political activist, and some friends, according to the website Ballotpedia. Nolan opposed the Vietnam War and President Richard M. Nixons wage and price controls. The Libertarians, who say they are committed to free-market principles, civil rights, personal freedom, non-interventionism, peace and free trade, had their first national convention in 1972.

As of July, 144 Libertarians held elected offices in 34 states, including three state legislators in Nevada, Nebraska and Utah. The party has affiliates in all 50 states and more than 250,000 registered Libertarian voters nationwide, Ballotpedia stated.

On their Montana website, Libertarians said they believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise and personal responsibility. Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for future generations.

Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a great way to live. We want a system which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way.

Michael Fucci, communications director for the Montana Libertarian Party, said they believe their candidate is a breath of fresh air.

His straight-forward manner and willingness to provide real answers to tough questions stands in stark contrast to the typical, overly rehearsed approach offered by the other candidates, he said in an email.

Wicks admits he has lofty goals in seeking victory May 25.

Its always tough for a third party to win. The dice are always loaded for Democrats and Republicans, he said.

He said the good thing about being a Libertarian is how many people do not know they are Libertarian until they research it.

Ive had numerous people say Ive been Libertarian all along, he said, adding he believes in fiscal responsibility.

Wicks said his dedication to fiscal responsibility brought him a lot of attention.

People after the debate saw I was a common-sense person and very forthright and honest, he said.

Wick said his fundraising picked up after the debate, not any million-dollar contributions, he said, still a few thousand dollars, it goes out as soon as it comes in.He estimates he has about $5,000 in his campaign war chest.He hopes the national party will donatefunds to help him.

In terms of what he is hearing on the campaign trail, Hands down its health care, he said, adding its followed by public land, veterans health care andeducation.

He said the luxury car, pickup truck and work truck analogy came to him a couple days before the debate.

As a farmer, I have a lot of time to think, going around in circles in a field, he said. People really latched on to it and understood what I was saying.

Weekends are now spent traveling around the state. On Saturday, an ugly truck contest was scheduled for Whitefish.

The Whitefish Pilot reported people were invited to have pictures taken with Wicks and his work truck. The contest will feature three categories: ugliest truck, fanciest truck and most serious work truck. Winners would receive a Wicks for Congress T-shirt.

In terms of what happens May 25, Fucci said its in the hands of folks casting ballots.

This is up to the voters to decide, he said. There are three candidates on the ballot, and as with any special election, the outcome is unpredictable. Mark Wicks has a strong message that rings true with many Montanans, and we expect considerable support as they head to the polls.

Here are comments from Wicks regarding some of the top issues during the campaign:

Public land: I would like to see access at least as good as it is now or better. He said its a bad idea to close roads so people cannot get in to fight fires or manage the land. He said claims of selling off national parks or wilderness are not going to happen.

Health care: Repeal it and get the federal government out of there. I dont think they can handle it and react to changes fast enough to make it work. He said it needs to be fixed and costs need to be bought down. I am not a fan of one size fits all solutions to anything.

Gun ownership: He said the National Rifle Association does not rate third-party candidates. But he said he has been in the gun industry for 20 years, selling at gun shows or online. He said there is no bigger supporter of the SecondAmendment than he.

Abortion: I dont make either side happy. With my views I believe people have a right to choose. He said he does not support late-term abortions. Id like us to do as much as we can for fewer abortions. He said he has a position paper on this subject on his Facebook page.

Trump budget: How is it different from any other budget in past? It does not matter if we send a Republican or Democrat to Congress, they will produce a spending plan that is over budget.

Transgender bathrooms: He said this was the first time he has been asked this question on the campaign trail: If you are wondering which bathroom to use, just call your mother and I think she will tell you.

Read or Share this story: http://gftrib.com/2r8QtZk

See original here:

Libertarian Mark Wicks sees shot at winning - Great Falls Tribune

In February of this year, republican state representative from Pelham, Caleb Dyer became the only sitting state rep in the United States to join the Libertarian Party. Now, just three months later, New Hampshire is making libertarian political history again as Keene democrat representing Ward One, Joseph Stallcop, today announced at a press conference at Concords state house, that he is also flipping to Libertarian! Heres the full press conference video:

Not only does New Hampshire now have more sitting state reps than the other 49 states combined, but Dyer and Stallcop, both 21 years old, are forming what is likely the youngest political caucus in the history of the United States.

Now that state reps from both parties have openly defected to the libertarians, the big question is which state rep will be next? Will the courage of these two young men inspire the other libertarian reps who are still operating as republicans and democrats to come out? Former state reps Eric Eastman and Joe Lachance also recently revealed they have flipped from republican to join the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.

State Representative Joseph Stallcop, of Keenes Ward One

Rep. Stallcop joining the Libertarian Party is also historic as he is the second sitting democrat state representative to have ever done so in the 45-year history of the national party.

New Hampshire, of course, also holds the distinction of having the first-ever democrat state rep to have flipped, when prior to the 2000 election, late state representative Steve Vaillancourt joined the party as a sitting democratic state rep and then ran for re-election in 2000 as a libertarian and won! This fact contradicts those naysayers in the liberty movement who have been claiming its impossible for libertarians who make the flip to actually win re-election. What they are saying is impossible has already been proven possible by New Hampshires own political history! In addition to Vaillancourt, in the nineties New Hampshire had multiple libertarian state reps who also won re-election.

At this mornings press conference, Stallcop gave an excellent speech that revealed the command-and-control structure in the NH democratic party, which echoed Dyers experience in the republican party. Thinking for ones self when in the major parties is apparently discouraged and voting his conscience resulted in his democratic colleagues lying to and looking down on him. One was overheard saying of him, Maybe we shouldnt have college students doing this job.

He called out the democrats hypocrisy, saying, they claim to be against casinos for fear of addiction, yet ignore the lotterys grasp on the poor. They claim to be for criminal justice, though many turned away from a bill that would close the asset forfeiture loophole. They claim to be for the protection of transgender rights, yet didnt even mark that bill as a caucus priority.

LPNH Now Holds Two Seats in State House!

Stallcop called his experience a Cinderella story in reverse and went on to excoriate the two-party system, saying hes, seen beyond the veil of politics and found that ignorance spreads best with mascots and teams. His speech made it clear that the governments social programs are built on a house of cards and he called for voluntary solutions that dont hinge on one political vote. Other speakers included LPNH chairman Darryl W Perry, national LP vice-chair Arvin Vohra, and state representative Caleb Dyer, who is now the floor leader of the new Libertarian house caucus. (Click their names to jump to the start of their speeches in the full video.)

Stallcop recently surprised many by attending the 420 rally at the state house, not only toking up with the crowd of civil disobedients, but also giving a great speech. Rumors began flying that he was considering joining the libertarians, a particularly exciting prospect as it flies in the face of the common misconception that libertarians come from the right, politically. Libertarians come from across the political spectrum, because the non-aggression principle, the guiding principle of libertarianism, is a universal principle and attracts anyone who can understand why its wrong to use aggressive force against peaceful people.

Libertarians and voluntarists around the world should take note of what is happening here. Once again, New Hampshire has proven how unique it is. There are 101 reasons why thousands liberty-loving activists have been moving here, and that list just keeps getting longer and more attractive as we continue to have success after success, as libertarians elsewhere continue to fail over and over again. If you really care about liberty, you really need to be planning your move to New Hampshire, ASAP. If youd like to connect with other libertarians already living here, please visit the Shire Forum.

See original here:

Keene Democrat State Rep. Joseph Stallcop Flips to Libertarian ... - Free Keene

I can not fully express how happy I am the French presidential election is over. That isnt to say Im pleased or unhappy with the outcome; I could care less which socialist was elected to be the new captain of a still-sinking ship. What Im happy about is I wont have to hear or read any more libertarians blithering on about and praising either Marine Le Pen or Emmanuel Macron.

If Macron winning causes some libertarians to think cooler French heads have prevailed, then I have a bridge to Galts Gulch to sell them. Macron is typically described as a moderate and centrist, yet he will supposedly preserve the status quo, meaning maintain the policies of lame duck President Franois Hollande, a socialist whose approval ratings rival those of George W. Bushs outgoing numbers. Yet, minutes after he won, plenty of libertarians were commenting that France has somehow been saved from Le Pens jackboots.

Many libertarians championed Le Pen despite her promise to close borders and withdraw from global markets; distrust of commodities speculation; advocacy of expanding entitlements for native French citizens; opposition to freedom of religion for Muslims who dont shoot up cafes and nightclubs. A friend of freedom Le Pen aint, but, hey, at least she wants to leave the EU!

My fellow libertarians who have been so inexplicably invested in the French election: what makes Le Pen offensive and Macron acceptable, and vice versa? They are both socialistic statists, and seem to differ only in their proposed responses to Islamic terrorism, which are about as opposite as can be. Le Pen wants to keep out Muslims who try to emigrate to France, while bestowing upon existing French Muslims second-class status; Macron, following the latest terror attack there, rhetorically threw up his hands, and said, This imponderable threat, this threat, will be a fact of daily life in the coming years. How are either Macron or Le Pen acceptable executors of the proper roles of government, which is to protect life, liberty and property? Libertarians by and large decry voting for the lesser of two evils, yet they shelved this for the French election.

***

Another reason Im happy the French election is over is that the MSM and liberals can focus on something other than the far right Le Pen. They are still literally shaking from the election of a supposed xenophobe to the White House that they now need to obsess over far right politicians in other countries to virtue-signal they are not racists. See, see?!?!? Theyre all like that!!! they huff under their shrines to Ted Kennedy, President Obama, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who are all more responsible for initiating and maintaining legal immigration quotas and bureaucracy than they are advancing freedom of movement.

The run up to the election has been one collective social media circle jerk of an anti-tautological argument that got me so angry I almost went full Sylvia Plath; since everything else about Le Pen indicates left-wing positions, when friends on Facebook describe Le Pen as far right, I ask them to name one country run by a far left government that has open borders. So far, no one has replied to my query.

If the French election has taught us anything, its that the left/right paradigm is obsolete. It no longer lends itself to accurate descriptions of political ideologies that way it used to, and applying the American context and understanding of the formulation to European politics is similar to how you need an adapter for power outlets when you travel there (sorry not sorry for what may or may not be a mixed metaphor).

Words usually evolve slowly, but the meanings of certain words commonly employed in political vernacular morph relatively rapidly. To further complicate things, different regions that share a common language can have different meanings for the same word. Conservative and liberal mean different things around the world, and even among Western democracies and republics. Hell, capitalization can affect definition: Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian dont mean democrat, republican, and libertarian, respectively, just as Democrat and Republican are not always synonymous with liberal/progressive and conservative.

(That these terms are easily confused by individuals with pedestrian knowledge of political ideologies should be especially obvious to we libertarians since we have an unhealthy obsession with fact-checking those on the left and right, and nitpicking what libertarianism is. Many libertarians engage in this ironic exercise of patting themselves on the back for being so principled and consistent, yet indulge this urge to tell anyone who listens what makes them so libertarian. I swear to Thoreau, libertarians are as self-absorbed and needy as vegans [I hope I never meet a libertarian vegan, I dont want to endure seven hours of what makes that sad, sorry son of a bitch so unique]. If you want to prove you are some ideological stalwart and/or hold the moral high ground, stop constantly refining your positions; it makes you seem unsure of yourself.)

***

UNITED AIRLINES WATCH 2017 UPDATE:

Im going to take you back to the subject of French morons to close out this column. The flying PR nightmare that is United Airlines is in the news yet again when a frog named Lucie Bahetoukilae flew to San Francisco instead of France:

According to Bahetoukilae, who speaks only French and allowed her niece to speak on her behalf, the airline changed the flights gate at the last minute, and failed to notify the passengers via email. Furthermore, Bahetoukilae claims the airline did not announce the gate change in French, despite the original flight being bound for Paris

Bahetoukilae, not knowing any better, gave her ticket to the gate agent, who then scanned it and allowed Bahetoukilae to board.

Upon arriving at her row, however, Bahetoukilae found another passenger seated in her spot. Confused, she showed her ticket to a flight attendant, who, instead of noticing the airlines error, simply sat Bahetoukilae in an empty seat.

Bahetoukilae then embarked on a 7.5-hour flight in the wrong direction. When she arrived in San Francisco, Bahetoukilae then endured an 11-hour layover as United tried to place her on another flight to France. In total, she spent more than 28 hours trying to reach her initial destination.

That she was neither beaten or left to die in a cargo hold counts as stellar customer service by Uniteds standards.

Look, all seriousness aside, some of the blame for this belongs to Bahetoukilae. She should have known she was on a flight to Frisco instead of Paris when all her fellow female travelers were wearing paisley dresses instead of burkas.

Of course, United has to shoulder most of this responsibility since their employees, through their neglect, allowed Bahetoukilae to board and remain on the flight. But its very easy to blame airlines since they are corporations (boo, hiss!) that sell their customers a hassle-laden product and lose sight of the fact that so much of what they do is governed by federal agencies like the FAA and TSA. Would removing government oversight fix every problem with the airline industry? Of course not. But loosening up some of the regulatory strangleholds would help loosen up some of the chokeholds airlines pass on to their passengers.

***

And thats the way it is, as far as you know.

Photo: Cafedodu.com

This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Dillon Eliassen is the Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. Dillon works in the sales department of a privately owned small company. He holds a BA in Journalism & Creative Writing from Lyndon State College, and needs only to complete his thesis for his Masters of English from Montclair State University (something which his accomplished and beautiful wife, Alice, is continually pestering him about). He is the author of The Apathetic, available at Amazon.com. He is a self-described Thoreauvian Minarchist.

Like Loading...

Read the original here:

Delusions & Shortcuts: The Left Is Right - Being Libertarian

Photo courtesy of Mark Wicks via Facebook

Libertarian Mark Wicks is running against Democrat Rob Quist and Republican Greg Gianforte for Montanas lone U.S. House seat, but he says a lack of media coverage of his campaign is making for a tough political fight.

Well I think they have been doing a real poor job, said Wicks. I had a really good performance in the debates. People have been really excited about it, but Sunday morning you had to read to the very end of the newspaper article to even find out I was there. People didnt even know what happened. Three out of the four commentators at the end said I had the win for the debate.

Wicks believes that an entrenched bias is swaying media away from covering him properly.

I think it is the two party bias, Wicks said. They are protecting the parties. It is hard to get around and hard to get articles ran or even get asked my opinion on stuff. They ask the other two candidates and gloss over me.

Wicks isnt alone in his grievances with Montanas treatment of third party campaigns. Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the green party bid to get on the ticket and, historically, no third party has had success in attaining a major office in Montana.

Read the rest here:

Libertarian Candidate Accuses Montana Media Of 'Poor Coverage and Bias' - Newstalkkgvo

@GhutfvbjfdrgvcWhat's worse, anti-anti-Trumpism, or Kmele Foster singing James Taylor? Or is that just an Obamaesque false choice? These are just some of the questions explored in this week's edition of The Fifth Column podcast, also featuring myself and Michael C. Moynihan. We of course dive into President Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director Jim Comey, and the media reaction thereof, as well as the likelihood of Congress exerting oversight.

Also receiving extended examination is top U.S. law enforcement assertion that Julian Assange is not a "journalist," and the fundamental boringness of libertarians vociferously agreeing with one another. Receiving additional mentions: Augustus Sol Invictus, Reason commenters, Jamie Kirchick, Milo Yiannopoulos, and this great Reason TV video. Listen up:

Reminder: Kmele Foster will be debating Lawrence Ross at the SoHo Forum May 16 on whether America's colleges have fostered a racist environment that makes them a hostile space for black students. And as mentioned on the podcat, I'll be on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher tomorrow night.

Get more Fifth Column at iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, wethefifth.com, @wethefifth, and Facebook.

Read the original:

Comey, Assange, and Libertarian Purity Tests: The New Fifth Column - Reason (blog)

PAT BENIC/UPI/NewscomPresident Donald Trump's decision to fire James Comey as head of the FBI on Tuesday set off a fire storm of political commentary, and with good reason. It's only the second time in the 108-year history of the FBI that the director has been fired by the president (the other was in 1993 when William Sessions was canned by President Bill Clinton over ethical issues), and, more importantly, the firing seemed to coincide with an escalation in the FBI's investigation of ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Trump apparently wants the Russia story to go away, but he did himself no favors by firing Comey in a way that invites criticism.

Setting aside the politics and optics of Trump's decision to dispose of Comeyboth of which look awful for Trump and have ramifications for Republicans in Congressthere are important legal and constitutional questions about Tuesday's firing.

Did Trump have the authority to fire Comey out of the blue like that? What happens next? Is this a constitutional crisis? I asked some of the top libertarian legal scholars in the country to weigh-in on those questions and offer their assessment of this whole, wild situation.

Here's what they told Reason on Wednesday (responses have been edited for clarity and length):

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow on constitutional studies at the Cato Institute; editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review:

"The legal/constitutional issues here are really easy: there are none. The president has undisputed removal power over the FBI director and he can now appoint a successor. (Until that successor is confirmed by the Senate, deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe is the acting director.)

"In other words, nothing that President Trump has done or is contemplating here is beyond his powers and there is no constitutional crisis. Having said that, the political and policy issues at playnot to mention the opticsare extremely serious.

"Congress may now set up its own investigation, or Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (at Trump's direction) could appoint an independent prosecutorbut one who by law would also be removable by the presidentor all of these actors could do nothing, leaving the ultimate verdict to the voters in next year's midterm election."

Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, with a specialty in constitutional law:

"The President has the legal authority to fire an FBI director for almost any reason he wants. I don't think any serious legal commentator doubts that.

"What happens now is that Trump will nominate a replacement for Comey and the Senate will have to decide whether to confirm that person. That may turn out to be an extremely consequential decision."

Somin added that he did not want the first part of his answer to cause libertariansor anyone elseto conclude there is no reason for concern:

"There is a danger that Trump will appoint someone who will look the other way on the Russia investigation (which is looking into allegations of possibly very serious lawbreaking by Trump and his associates), or someone who will condone abuses of civil liberties of the sort we saw in the earlier history of the FBI. Trump's disdain for freedom of speech and his threats to use the power of government to go after his critics are far from reassuring on that score."

Josh Blackman, associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, with a specialty in constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The actions are perfectly constitutional. What happens next is up to the political process. Congress can investigate as it sees fit, and use whatever remedies, up to impeachment, it deems necessary."

On his personal blog, Blackman detailed the crucial difference between Trump's firing of Comey and the so-called "Saturday Night Massacre" in 1973, when President Richard Nixon pushed for the firing of a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in:

"Further, for those drawing analogies to the Saturday Evening Massacre, recall that Nixon never actually fired anyone himself. Instead, he had to ask a subordinate to fire the special prosecutor for cause. Comey was fired by the President, directly, at will (though plenty of causes were given)."

David Bernstein, professor of law at George Mason University:

"I don't think there's any doubt that Trump has the constitutional and legal authority to fire Comey. As for what comes next, Trump will have to appoint a new FBI Director, who will need to be confirmed by the Senate. If the Senate does its job, it will ensure that the new director is not a Trump crony, and indeed the hearings for that new nominee could shed light on the background to Comey's firing.

"There is definitely no constitutional crisis here. Indeed, by a proper understanding of how the executive branch is supposed to work, it would be absurd to think the president is obligated to keep an official he doesn't want, as they are all essentially his employees/agents.

"I can't really speak to how this will play out politically, but in Nixon's case you had a special prosecutor who was getting close to revealing Watergate related secrets, and Nixon was trying to interfere with the investigation. Here, I don't think it's at all clear that the FBI, and any new FBI director, will be any less aggressive than Comey in pursuing the Russia investigation.

"Moreover, because such an individual will have been confirmed by a GOP Senate and not have Comey's baggage from the campaign, the results of that investigation will have additional credibility."

Todd Gaziano, senior fellow in constitutional law, Pacific Legal Foundation:

"Whether you think Comey's dismissal was justified or not, it is not a 'constitutional crisis' for the head of the FBI to be fired. Our republic and the constitutional separation of powers do not require an FBI director at all. The primary checks on executive error or abuse that the Framers created were political, electoral, and judicial checks that do not require a 'special prosecutor' or other 'independent' figures in the executive branch."

Tim Lynch, the Cato Institute's director of criminal justice projects, highlights Comey's history of conducting "trial by news conference," a tactic that he used against Hillary Clinton last year. Though the removal was ham-fisted, Lynch says, it was probably the right thing to do.

"We can do much better than James Comey. If Trump can repeat the careful process by which he selected Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and secure a fairly swift confirmation vote, this matter will soon be forgotten. If the selection process is mishandled, the political storm clouds will hang over the White House for quite some time."

Excerpt from:

Here's What Libertarian Legal Scholars Think About Comey's Firing - Reason (blog)

Algernon D'Ammassa, Headlight Staff 11:51 a.m. MT May 11, 2017

Lescombes(Photo: Headlight Photo)Buy Photo

DEMING I am not here to talk anyone into being a libertarian. That would not be very libertarian of me.

This was how Elizabeth Hanes, Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, greeted visitors at an open house introducing the partys new Luna County chapter. The event was open to the public and held Saturday evening at the St. Clair Winery, 1325 DeBaca Road.

Founded in 1971 in Colorado, the Libertarian Party promotes individual liberty, liberal capitalism, small government, and non-interventionist foreign policy. In the 2016 federal election, the party secured ballot status in all 50 states for candidate Gary Johnson, who was Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. The campaign won more than 3 percent of the popular vote, falling short of the 5 percent threshold that would qualify the party for federal funds as an official minor party under Federal Election Commission rules. Nonetheless, Hanes cited the popularity of the Johnson campaign as an opportunity to grow the party.

Having supported Johnson in the 2016 election, Rebecca Lescombes of Deming initiated the formal organization of a county Libertarian chapter to compete with the Democratic and Republican parties. I came as a disgruntled Republican, she said at the open house. Ive been Republican since I was able to vote, but Ive watched years of Republican shenanigans and getting nothing done, and the Republicans and the Democrats becoming the same beast.

Her initial goals are formulating a party organization and recruiting members, but a second priority will be to recruit candidates for local office. Lescombes even indicated she was considering a run herself, though she did not disclose which office she might seek.

A handful of citizens from Deming came to the open house to read literature, meet the state and county chairs, and engage in wide-ranging conversation about politics. Participants ranged from the just curious to a man who described himself as a small-L libertarian, not big-L. An hour into the event, he indicated he would join the party.

The social policies of the Libertarian Party appeal to me, said Lescombes. Everyone has a right to do what they want. You want to marry a guy, you can marry a guy. Do what you want to do as long as you dont hurt anybody else.

There is a lot of disappointment in Trump, said Hanes, a nurse and writer based in Albuquerque, referring to President Donald Trump. Republicans have told me, I thought Trump was going to do what he said but now its just more of the same. However, the chairwoman argued that the Libertarian party is not only a haven for disaffected Republicans, but also for Democrats and progressives concerned about state power and large national debt. Were fiscally responsible and socially we dont have a damn what you do, she said. Democrats are already with us on half of that. I think eventually theyll come around on the financial side.

Algernon D'Ammassa can be reached at 575-546-2611 (ext. 2608) or adammassa@demingheadlight.com.

Read or Share this story: http://www.demingheadlight.com/story/news/2017/05/11/libertarians-organize-luna-county/101555620/

The rest is here:

Libertarians organize in Luna County - Deming Headlight

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Kitty Testa

For many liberty advocates, finding like-minded thinkers among the Libertarian Party has been a blessing. The rift between Democrats and Republicans has been exhausting over the past year, and it was easy to get to the point where you suspected a grand psyop was underway and you were one of a handful of people who was strangely immune. Finding people who share a love of liberty and understand that it is possible to reject the duopoly and move forward on a set of liberty principles was refreshing for many who first looked to the LP during the last election, and the Libertarian Party boasts that 2016 was a record year for membership.

While the LP advocates for a set of ideas based on libertarian principles, the purpose of an organized party is to gain political influence, either by winning elections or by running candidates that are able to pull more dominant candidates into views that advance liberty in general. In order to achieve practical influence, a political party needs to be inviting to outsiders. It needs to groom charismatic candidates to spread its message. A successful Libertarian must present a positive vision of what libertarian freedom might look like in practice.

But todays Libertarian Party is content to preach to its own dissonant choir. Its recent outreach on social media is tone-deaf, and the momentum the LP gained of 2016 is in danger of falling off. Those involved in the liberty movement have shifted their focus to actual policy initiatives coming from government as opposed to fighting the dominance of the duopoly in an election. This is an excellent opportunity to advance liberty ideas and to illustrate how the average American will benefit from restoration of his liberties. Ive observed many grass roots libertarians doing this in their home states, fighting for one policy and against another to defend liberty.

But what does the national Libertarian Party do? It posts memes of the LP platform and libertarian clichs on social media. It promotes discord within the party. And it shoots itself in the foot, seemingly every damn day.

Last February, The Commission on Presidential Debates was ordered to rewrite its rules so as not to arbitrarily discriminate against third parties. The LP was a party to the suit brought against the CPD, and that was constructive. So with a few years to go before another presidential election, the LP might want to seriously consider the wider liberty movement and how to gather, as opposed to repel, potential LP voters.

But is the LP serious? Sometimes it seems as if the LP is sabotaging the liberty movement as opposed to advancing it. Here are five ways how.

Many libertarians felt a little thrill at LP Chair Nicholas Sarwarks statement on election night when he faced the duopoly and stated, Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.

But be honest: it was a cheap thrill. Ill get you next time, Gadget! comes to mind. In the most favorable circumstances for an LP presidential candidate to gain ground, Gary Johnson failed to receive 5% of the popular vote, coming in with just under 3.3%. Sarwarks words were pretty big talk for a party that gets trounced in every election. Putting a positive face on a loss isnt easy, but it never hurts to be gracious in defeat. Sarwark was just being a jerk.

OK, so lets give him a pass on election night. How about Sarwarks declaration that abortion isnt a real political issue? That pretty much exploded on social media among libertarians, with many pro-choice members demanding that pro-lifers get out of their party while Larry Sharpe tried his best at damage control.

Then there was an ill-fated attempt at being religiously inclusive by posting a tenet from The Satanic Temple on the LP Facebook page during Easter and Passover week. For some Christian and Jewish libertarians it did seem to be provocative, and again stoked divisions within the party. How about this? To everyone celebrating holidays this week, know that The Libertarian Party supports freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. You could post it during Ramadan, Diwali, and every other special religious holidayand even on Atheist Day! Thats how inclusion works. But the LPs focus seemed to be on avoiding a micro-aggression against the relatively few people who belong to The Satanic Temple and chose instead to alienate Christians and Jews. Because Satan is a figure in Judaic faiths, and also because almost no one knows what The Satanic Temple is, it was almost as if the LP was trolling believers during Easter and Passover. What jerks!

Most recently, LP Vice Chair, Arvin Vohra, stated that those who enlist in the military are only doing so for college money, and implied that they were willing to kill people for money. Perhaps Mr. Vohra is unaware that over 90% of enlisted personnel are stationed in the U.S. and Europe and never kill anyone. So Vohras charge against military personnel isnt only provocative, but just plain incorrect.

While I sometimes think that America has a somewhat unhealthy worship for the military, making such a broad statement about those who enlist is obscene. Today a petition was started to oust Vohra for his remarks. Thats unlikely, but when he tries to recruit Libertarian candidates, its going to be a sore spot among veterans.

These are all examples of how LP leadership, and sometimes its members, are just like that guy that walks into a party and starts insulting people thinking it makes him look like an enviable alpha. It doesnt. It just makes you look like a jerk.

Gary Johnsons campaign made a strategic move during the 2016 election cycle to woo Bernie Sanders supporters at the expense of ostracizing potential voters of a more conservative stripe. Johnson stressed his liberal (i.e. progressive) positions on abortion, legalization of cannabis, and open borders, and he played down the partys free market principles and support of religious freedom. He sent a shock wave through Libertarian circles by suggesting that Jewish bakers should be forced to bake cakes for Nazis. Just before the election, he came out in support of Universal Basic Income.

Johnson is a liberaltarian, that is people who lean liberal (progressive) on social issues, but are libertarian on fiscal issues. The trouble here is that to force people to bake cakes and to use taxation (theft) to provide a universal basic income to all are not libertarian ideas.

Johnson still has a lot of support within the LP, and many members of the LP deplore conservatives of any stripeeven when theyre happy to advance liberty and mind their own business. They dont want LP members who refuse to march in the Gay Pride Parade but will otherwise circulate petitions. They dont want pro-lifers in the party whose positions are based on science and natural rights.

Yes, the LP has grown, but is also developing its own orthodoxy and litmus tests. Sounds so much like libertynot.

How many times have you heard, Anarcho-capitalism is the only way! Yeah, but thats not going to happen any time soon. Lets see how Seastead works first. The radical changes in governance that libertarians propose are often rejected out of hand because libertarians are focused on an idea goal and how great that will be, and dont generally think about how you actually get there, and who gets hurt. Showing how a libertarian micro-economy works may well be more persuasive than persuading people to ditch everything they know in favor of an ideal that is foreign and risky. Using common examples of eBay and Etsy as global, free marketplaces is more persuasive than shouting about dismantling OSHA.

People are afraid of mass legalization of recreational drugs not because theyre incurable assholes, but because they are worried that people will be hurtespecially children. People dont support the distribution of child pornography because in their practical experience, children are easily manipulated and used, and will trade their house for an ice cream cone. Especially small children do not have the mental capacity to understand the future ramifications of their actions, but some libertarians think of children who are participating in child porn as actors. Seriously. Have they ever met a five-year-old?

Theres a commonly shared meme in libertarian circles which states that if you need violence to enforce your ideas, your ideas are worthless. Just try to convince even a sizable minority of Americans that its OK to give heroin to a five-year-old and then convince her to take part in kiddie porn. If this is what libertarian liberty looks like, almost no one is going to buy in. Give it up. This is one you just cant win.

Mises Institute v. Cato. Cato v. Ron Paul. Adam Kokesh v. Austin Petersen. The LP is a collection of rifts, often played out on social media. Sometimes I think cuck-fighting is the official sport of the LP. Every few weeks some celebritarian throws shade at another, usually replete with personal insults and braggadocious claims.

Even though every libertarian has his favorite philosopher and they dont always agree on every little thing, libertarianism is generally a cohesive philosophy. Yes, it is open to interpretation, but why are there so manybitter squabbles among libertarians? And why all the drama?

Too many egos. How are we going to convince the lovers of government control that people can work everything out for themselves when libertarians cant even agree where we agree?

The LP makes this attempt in its platform, which is really quite good. Sure, I would like there to be some acknowledgement that there is such a thing as a libertarian pro-life view and some age of consent protections, so its imperfect. Yet, its actually substantive and better than either the Democrat or the Republican platform. Its not full of platitudes and promises, but principlesprinciples of liberty.

Ah, but libertarians are too busy telling other libertarians that theyre not libertarians. Yeah, thats constructive.

What if the same energy spent by libertarian pugilists over philosophical purity were spent on actually marketing freedom to the masses? Might the liberty movement have a better chance?

Sometimes I wonder if libertarians are just comfortable being on the outside looking in. Sure, there are a handful of libertarians who have achieved office (numbering 152, to be exact). They are mostly in local offices, which is nothing to be ashamed of, as citizens are often more affected by local governments than state and federal governments. And I understand that its really hard to get elected when youre not running as a D or an R.

But its clear that as a national force, the liberty movement has much more potential.

When voters bother to vote, it is in self-interest, which often extends beyond their own personal lives into their communities. How do the ideals of liberty translate into their self-interest? That is the only question on the table. If the liberty movement is going to make meaningful headway against authoritarians, it has to nip at the heels of the status quo, supporting pro-liberty reforms that people can actually get behind.

Libertarians need to take an outward approach. The fact is that most people arent willing to embrace libertarianism in its fullest. But that doesnt mean there isnt room for progress. We need to reject the duopolys game of fear-mongering voters into electing them and promote liberty in positive terms. We need to take that LP platform and translate it into tangible improvements in peoples lives. Make it easier to start a business. Let the markets continue to reduce the cost of living, and bring them exotic things they never knew they wanted. We need to reassure those in need that the rug will not be pulled out from under them all at once, while pressing hard against corporate welfare. We need to promise an incremental march toward liberty, not a wholesale re-imagining of the world they live in.

That, and stop acting like a jerk.

Adam Kokesharvin vohraaustin petersenBernie SandersDemocratsGary JohnsonLarry Sharpelibertarian partynicholas sarwarkRepublicansron paul

See the original post here:

Top Five Ways the Libertarian Party is Sabotaging the Liberty ... - The Libertarian Republic

Courtesy of Robert Woo

From 7:30 p.m. to nearly 10:15 p.m. on Wednesday, March 3 in 2200 Spieth Hall, Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), co-sponsored by UCR College Republicans and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, hosted Lily Tang, the 2016 Libertarian nominee for U.S. Senate in Colorado. In the event titled Lily Tang: My journey to freedom, Tang spoke about her life in Maos Communist China.

The event drew about 30 attendees, including a family with two young children who drove more than two hours to see Tang. Tang narrated a slideshow of images portraying events from her youth, explaining how the political environment under Maos reign from 1949-1976 impacted her and her family.

After a short introduction by YAL President Joseph Gomez, and brief announcements by Vice President of the UCR College Republicans Jorge Flores, Tang began by describing her early upbringing. Born in Chengdu, Sichuan Province in southwest China two years before Maos Cultural Revolution began, her parents worked in factories six days a week. They were given small rations for foods like sugar, wheat, rice and two pounds of pork a month for a family of five with eight families sharing one bathroom in their government-provided community housing.

Tang desired as a school-aged child to be inducted into Maos Young Pioneers, an organization for elementary school students, where they taught you it was your honor, privilege, you have to be a red class family. She spoke of the Five Red Categories which were a way of creating a class distinction primarily based on birth. My parents were red class because were not landowners, property owners, said Tang, going on to share that her father was an orphan later adopted by his uncle to work on his farm.

She chronicled her path to the Young Pioneers, explaining that she was one of the best students and that she was very confident, I told my girlfriend, I bet I will be the first one to join Young Pioneers, and she told my teacher. My teacher called me into her office, Im not going to allow you to join Young Pioneers, why? Because you are full of yourself, you are too confident Why cant you be like everybody else and be humble? She later shared that she learned how to conform to a collective society, I need(ed) to hide my true personality, my true colors of self confidence.

She then showed a picture of her elementary school teachers, pointing out one teacher who taught political correctness, shes called a political counselor, thats her job! She explained that if a family or student was not in line with party beliefs, they would be reported to the political counselor who had all the power. Tang was afraid of being reported to the political counselor so she conformed, and one year later was finally inducted into the Young Pioneers.

While speaking of the sociopolitical upheavals characteristic of Maos dictatorship, Tang showed a picture of the president of Beijing University paraded as a pariah by the student paramilitary group Red Guard and put under house arrest when accused of being a stinking intellectual. She described the belief that the only love you are allowed to express publicly is you love, in a collective sense, you love your country, you love your community, you love Mao, you love (the) party. She stated that you were not allowed to publicly show love for your family, citing an oft-repeated song lyric, father and mother are dear, but dearer still is Chairman Mao

She also told the story of her uncles generation who was forced under government mandate to get reeducated by peasants. Her grandmothers three sons were sent to the countryside only allowing the youngest child to stay in the household. He was sent to a tea farm where he worked for 12 years saying that we were used, we didnt come back to the cities the young people were used to silence others, speaking of the students in the Red Guard but later they were silenced by the government. Only after the young men threatened to commit suicide on the railroad tracks did they allow the students to come home and work their parents job.

Tang graduated high school in 1981 and went to law school in Shanghai, being selected as a faculty member upon her graduation. During her time in law school, she interacted with several foreigners, meeting one American that changed my life, he showed me a constitution in his dormitory I had never heard about this concept in my entire life each human being has natural rights given to you by your creator, not by your government. I thought Chairman Mao gave me everything No, Im supposed to have those natural rights. She did more research on the U.S. in secret, learning about separation of powers, limited government, all those freedoms I thought this country is so cool, someday I have to leave China.

She became a law school faculty member, describing how the party oversaw everything, a prime example being how she was forced to take political studies courses and join the Communist party. The law, according to the theory you would think laws protect the people and property No, in China, our first day of class, the law is a tool for the government to use to govern the masses, you are not an individual, you are just masses.

Tang decided that she could not stay in China and was accepted by the University of Texas, Austin as a graduate student to study social work. With her bosss permission and $100 in her pocket borrowed from friends, she moved to the U.S. in 1988 saying, I made it, I got out.

After an intermission where pizza and drinks were served, an hour-long Q-and-A followed, discussing various political issues and why she became a Libertarian.

Excerpt from:

Libertarian speaker Lily Tang talks about her life under Mao's Communist regime - Highlander Newspaper