Category Archives: Libertarianism

Attendees cheer on J.D. Vance, Republican Senate candidate for Ohio, as he speaks during the Save America rally with former President Donald Trump at the Delaware County Fairgrounds in Delaware, Ohio, on April 23, 2022.

Photo: Eli Hiller/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Since the mid-20th century, the U.S. has seen no fewer than three political movements broadly described as the New Right. There was the first New Right of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and conservative student groups, with their right-libertarianism, anti-communism, and emphasis on social values. The second generation to earn the moniker the New Right of Ronald Reagan, Jerry Falwell, and both George Bushes leaned harder into conservative Christianity, populism, and free markets.

These New Right waves were different largely in tone and presentation; there was considerable overlap in ideology and even personnel. The high-minded conservatism of a Buckley and the pandering populism of a Bush have never been oppositional approaches, despite attempts to explain them this way. Every version of the New Right has been propelled by more or less explicit white supremacist backlash and robust funding.

Now, in our era of Trumpian reaction, we are seeing reports about a new New Right. Like the New Rights that came before it, its a loose constellation of self-identifying anti-establishment, allegedly heterodox reactionaries. The newest of the Rights is similarly fueled by disaffection with liberal progress myths and united by white supremacist backlash this time, with funding largely from billionaire Peter Thiel.

The new New Right has made headlines in recent weeks. In particular, Vanity Fair published a thoroughly and thoughtfully reported feature detailing the emergence of a rising right-wing circle made up of highly educated Twitter posters, podcasters, artists, and even online philosophers, most notably the neo-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin. And the New York Times dedicated a fluffy feature to the founding of niche online magazine Compact, which claims to feature heterodox thinking but instead offers predictable contrarianism and tired social conservatism.

Alongside GOP candidates for office like J.D. Vance and Blake Masters, this motley scene follows the ideological weft and warp of Trumpist nationalism, while alluding to greater intellectual and revolutionary ambitions, sometimes wearing cooler clothes, and receiving money from Thiel.

The turn to the New Right is a choice, by people with privilege and options, in favor of white standing, patriarchy, and crucially money.

The focus on these groups is all fine and well: Why shouldnt the media do fair-minded reporting on a burgeoning political trend? Yet there is the risk of reifying a ragtag cohort into a cultural-political force with more power than it would otherwise have.

More crucially, theres a glaring omission in the coverage. Todays New Right frames itself as the only force currently willing to fight against the regime, as Vance calls it, of liberal capitalisms establishment power and the narratives that undergird it. The fundamental premise of liberalism, Yarvin told Vanity Fairs James Pogue, is that there is this inexorable march toward progress. I disagree with that premise.

The problem is that characters like Yarvin had another choice; the march to the far right is no more inexorable than misplaced faith in liberal progress. There is a whole swath of the contemporary left that also wholly rejects liberal establishment powers, the logic of the capitalist state, and liberalisms progress myths. Rejection of liberal progress propaganda has been a theme of left-wing writing, including mine, for years, and Im hardly alone. Such positions are definitive of a radical, antifascist, anti-racist left.

Donald Trump delivers remarks at a Save America event with guests J.D. Vance, Mike Carey, Max Miller, and Madison Gesiotto Gilbert in Delaware, Ohio, on April 23, 2022.

Photo: Peter Zay/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

These leftist, liberatory tendencies may not be empowered in the Democratic Party, even on its left flank, but they are still present and active throughout the United States. They exist, they are accessible, and they have raged against the regime of contemporary power long before the current New Right came into its embryonic form.

This matters when thinking about the forces of neo-reaction because it clarifies the type of choice members of the New Right are making. While neo-reaction is indeed often based on the rejection of the liberal mainstream and its hollow promises, that rejection alone does not itself push someone into the New Right; moves to the anti-racist far left can begin the exact same way.

So what distinguishes the New Right turn? Its a choice, by people with privilege and options, in favor of white standing, patriarchy, and crucially money. You cannot discount the cash: Theres serious money to be made, so long as your illiberalism upholds all the other oppressive hierarchies. And its of note that the key source of funding Thiels fortunes skyrocketed due to President Donald Trumps racist immigration policies, which remain almost entirely in place under the Biden administration. Ethnocentrism is central to Vances and Masterss platforms now.

The Vanity Fair piece highlights the irony that these so-called anti-authoritarians of the New Right, obsessed as they are with the dystopianism of the contemporary U.S., wholly overlook the most dystopian aspects of American life: our vast apparatus of prisons and policing.

Pogue is far from credulous and has said in interviews that the subjects of his story however heterogeneous they claim to be share an investment in authoritarianism. Yet the failure of New Right figures to talk about prisons and policing is no oversight: It is evidence of a white supremacism that need not be explicitly stated to run through this movement. This strain of reaction, after all, comes in the wake of the largest anti-racist uprisings in a generation, one that cannot be dismissed as liberal performance. The timing lays bare how this New Right fits into the countrys unbroken history of white backlash.

The decision of the disaffected to join the forces of reaction might appear understandable when it is presented as the only route for those willing to challenge the yoke of liberal capitalism and its pieties. This is harder to justify on those terms when it is clarified that an anti-capitalist left exists. The difference is that, unlike the New Right, thefar left abhors white supremacist patriarchy and rejects the obvious fallacy that there is something pro-worker, or anti-capitalist, about border rule and labor segmentation.

The matter of money should not be understated. Radical left movements, unlike the New Right,arenot popular among billionaire funders; thats what happens when you challenge the actual regime of capital. To highlight the path not chosen by the New Right, then, is to show their active desire not for liberation but for domination which is nothing new on the right at all.

See the article here:
The New New Right Was Forged in Greed and White Backlash - The Intercept

(Briana Scroggins | Special to The Tribune) Utah independent Evan McMullin walks with supporters to the auditorium during the Utah Democratic Convention at Cottonwood High School in Murray, Utah on Saturday, April 23, 2022.

By James Hansen | Special to The Tribune

| April 29, 2022, 2:30 p.m.

This past weekend, independent Evan McMullin successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the Utah Democratic Party. Masquerading as a healthy alternative to U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, a slight majority of Utah Democratic Convention delegates opted not to advance their candidate, Kael Weston, to shoehorn Democrats across the state into supporting McMullins Not Mike Lee campaign.

In an opinion piece to The Salt Lake Tribune, Weston writes a clear and scathing criticism of McMullins key message, Campaigning against someone is not enough. This election year we should insist that candidates address the issues that matter to Utah families. Voters deserve to hear what candidates are for and how they intend to help improve our lives and futures.

Evan McMullin is a D.C. man through and through. Statements from his 2016 campaign are indicative of a candidate who would support expanding the defense budget, more conflicts and interventions abroad, tougher civilian-killing sanctions on uncooperative nations, anti-LGBTQ and marriage equality, expansion of federal powers to surveil and apprehend U.S. citizens and follow GOP party leadership in partisan voting.

With a resume that includes CIA operative, Wall Street banker and GOP analyst and consultant, we can easily predict McMullins political career style and focus. Federal power and special interests. Evan McMullin is the poster child of Wall Street and the Pentagon, precisely the kind of person Utahns should not elect.

I am offering a stark contrast to Evan McMullins and Mike Lees campaigns for Utahns to choose from this Fall. As a father of four, working as a high school physics teacher and coach, I have an authentic and grounded connection to the issues facing our students, families and communities. I am striving to bring a focus to tax burdens on lower and middle-class families of our state, the ballooning defense budget and the fallout of decades of warfare, removing barriers to quality primary care to improve health outcomes, protecting our environment and managing our precious water resources, defending the rights of LGBTQ Utahns to have fair and equal treatment under the law, eliminating subsidies/bailouts for oil and gas and all special interests, criminal justice reform and greater accountability in our law enforcement agencies and connecting federal education dollars to the student and their outcomes, not institutions.

Pressing issues need fixing in our great nation, and there is no time to squander on partisan politics and fearmongering. I promise to go to Washington with a deep focus on these issues and work with like-minded members of Congress to accomplish them, party affiliation be damned!

I invite you to visit my campaign website at JimmyForUtah.com and read more about the key issues facing Utahns and how I propose to solve them.

James Hansen is the Utah Libertarian Party nominee for U.S Senate. He resides in Heber City and teaches physics and geology at Wasatch High.

Here is the original post:
McMullins is a DC man through and through and won't do what Utah voters need. - Salt Lake Tribune

Dear Capitolisters,

As Ive mentioned here before, I hail from the right side of the libertarian spectrum and have long worked with conservatives, center-right media, and Republican politicians on various policy issues.Back then, wed surely disagree on specific line itemsIraq or the drug war, for examplebut we always shared a core belief in certain fundamental principles about government, public policy, and life.These principles, not necessarily shared by the left (for better or worse), ensured that wed remain close allies in the political arena, regardless of our disagreements on discrete issues. (I even recall one time scoffing at a former colleagues liberaltarian project in the early 2000s, because the left and libertarians had far more fundamental disagreements about natural rights, limited government, the rule of law, and related issues.)

As readers of The Dispatch are surely aware, this fusionist alliance has, in recent years, frayed, with many self-identified conservatives today accusing us libertarians of not only being turtleneck-wearing, election-losing chart jockeys but actually causing many of the rights (and Americas) problems.But I think the Florida-Disney sagaparticularly many mainstream conservatives reactions theretomay take the schism to a whole new (and bad) level and reveal in the process that, if this is the new conservatism its not very conservative at all.

Follow this link:
What's Conservative About the New Conservatism? - The Dispatch

Independent voters will have a lot of power during the midterm election. They outnumber Republicans and Democrats.

"Even though a Republican can say and promise A, B, C, a Democrat can promise D, E, and F, but I might like A and a little bit of E so its not just red and blue anymore," said Esmeralda Villeda, one of the millions of independent voters in the U.S.

Villeda is like many Americans who are frustrated with politics.

I dont watch the news because, at this point, all it is, is 'this candidate said this, this candidate that, let me find something else to talk bad about this person,'" she said. "That's not what politics is about."

Villeda, a Las Vegas native and first-generation Mexican-American, was the first in her family to graduate from high school.

She used to be politically active, even helping national and local political campaigns

Its a little heartbreaking," Villeda said, "because right out of high school, I was full-on Democrat and voting Democrat all the way.

After the 2020 election, Villeda said she was fed up with party politics.

It got very messy. It got very, 'Youre with me or against me,'" Villeda said

According to Gallup, as of March, 40% of voters say they are independent, more than the 28% who say they are Republican and 30% say they are Democrat.

In 2004, 27% of voters identified as independent, while Republicans made up 38% of voters and Democrats made up 35%.

I think thats one of the things you see nationally is this sort of swinging from Democrat to Republican control, youre seeing voters say no to both parties not saying yes to either one here," said University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) political science professor David Damore.

Damore has taught politics at UNLV for 22 years. Non-partisan and minor party voters, like Libertarians, now make up the largest group of voters in Nevada, which has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country.

Damore said Nevada has seen a non-partisan voter boost because of the state's automatic voter registration. New residents are registered to vote when they get a driver's license and non-partisan is the default option.

Damore contends non-partisan voters have a lot of power.

You look back in '16, Trump carried them narrowly here, they shifted to Biden two years ago, so its a real uncertainty here," Damore said.

This November, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, could be voted out. Independents could be the group tips the scales in favor of a Republican challenger.

A lot of them are new to the state, so the question is how much are they going to spend learning about these candidates or are they just going to go with the national flow," Damore contemplated.

Independents might have even more power if people like Jeremy Gruber get their way.

His nonpartisan, nonprofit group, Open Primaries Education Fund, is pushing for all states to open their primary elections to independent voters.

This year, 12 states are not allowing independents to vote in primaries. They will only be allowed to participate in general elections.

Theyre taxpayer-funded. We pay millions of dollars every year to fund primaries," Gruber said. "They are for all intents and purposes public elections, but we let the parties decide which members of the public can participate."

This fall, Villeda will vote in her first election as a non-partisan and she is OK with it. She will be voting for the person, not the party.

"This what America is," she said. "We have a right to our own voice."

Read this article:
The power of the independent voter - Denver 7 Colorado News

Switzerland's tech-neutral approach to regulation has created a fertile ground for bitcoin adoption

Ask the average person in the street what they think about bitcoin, and youre likely to hear one of two responses: either its an earth-shattering invention thatll transform global finance; or its a dodgy game for fraudsters and speculators thatll end in tears.

Bitcoins tendency to divide opinions isnt surprising. The blockchain technology its built on is a complex invention, only deeply understood by programmers and mathematicians. Its also relatively new the first bitcoin block was mined just 13 years ago so there hasnt been much time for governments, academics and the media to wrap their heads around the subject.

What everyone seems to agree on and what fuels much of the skepticism about bitcoin is the fact that its early history was entwined with criminality and an ultra-libertarian worldview that bordered on anarchism.

It was the cypherpunk movement of the 1990s that laid the foundations for bitcoin, coalescing a community of geeks around the shared belief that cryptography a form of digital encryption could protect global citizens from intrusion by all-seeing governments, intelligence agencies and corporations.

Whether Satoshi Nakamoto, bitcoins creator, saw himself as part of the cypherpunk movement isnt clear. His invention used cryptography in a more nuanced way: sidelining central banks by creating a decentralized form of digital money. Nonetheless, most of bitcoins early use cases were illicit extorting hacking ransoms, for example, or selling drugs on the dark web so the link with anarchism became entrenched.

Fast forward to today, and bitcoin is a very different animal. The worlds oldest and largest cryptocurrency now has a market cap of $735 billion; its spawned thousands of rivals and a new industry of Decentralized Finance (DeFi); two countries El Salvador and the Central African Republic treat it as legal tender; financial institutions hoard it as digital gold; and the endless applications of blockchain have fueled innovation in every business sector on the planet.

One country, in particular, seems determined to help bitcoin and blockchain grow out of their roots in the cypherpunk movement and spread their wings as avowedly mainstream technologies.

The financially innovative, politically libertarian nation of Switzerland has already made strides in legitimizing bitcoin. In the town of Zug, SEBA Bank, one of two Swiss crypto banks, is reporting a surge in institutional demand for cryptocurrencies thanks to its myriad regulatory licenses. In Zurich, Sygnum, the other crypto bank, is using blockchain-specific laws to create a new form of tokenized art investments. And in Lugano, the municipal government backed by stablecoin issuer Tether is exploring how to make its local economy run almost entirely on cryptocurrency.

Developments like these are probably not what the cypherpunks had in mind when they first heard of bitcoin. But Swiss officials make no apologies for their pragmatic approach.

To the contrary, an administrative unit of the federal government thats tasked with regulating and promoting international finance is pulling out all the stops to put a friendly face on the new, crypto-centric digital economy.

Much of the ecosystem you see flourishing not just in Switzerland, but also abroad is probably going against the initial idea of the crypto anarchists, explains Nino Landerer, head of capital markets & infrastructure at the State Secretariat for International Finance (SIF), which is based in Switzerlands capital Bern and comes under the responsibility of the finance ministry.

[The original vision for bitcoin was] having a fully decentralized system where everyone manages his or her own keys, and no one trusts anyone, but they can all verify everything. That was the ultimate basic idea in Nakamotos white paper. And some tech people believe in that fundamental philosophy. But that's not the ecosystem we see. We see a rather centralized ecosystem. We see service providers like banks who are providing services to clients. And their clients trust the banks not the DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology that helps make bitcoin secure).

So it's really kind of building up a similar system to what we already have just based on cryptoassets.

Many of the industry experts who are trying to make bitcoin a part of everyday life seem to agree. Paolo Ardoino, chief technology officer at Tether, is one of the architects of Luganos Plan B initiative, which envisages the city becoming the European capital of bitcoin. He describes himself as super libertarian but is quick to add: You also have to be realistic.

We need regulation and we need laws, Ardoino says. You can be an anarchist when you are with a few of your friends. But if youre actually living in a country and you want to build infrastructure, you cannot be an anarchist.

Switzerlands attempt to find a middle ground involves falling back on the governments longstanding claim of tech neutrality. Rather than developing regulation for certain technologies and, in doing so, showing an indirect preference for them the country favors a catch-all approach of regulating activities. Thus when crypto banks like SEBA and Sygnum offer custody for bitcoin deposits, their services are held to the same standards and obligations that apply when traditional banks custody fiat deposits.

The advantage of this approach, officials say, is that it allows the rules to be applied universally in fast-moving situations. When sanctions were imposed on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, for example, cryptoassets were explicitly included without any need for additional, sector-specific regulation.

As well as influencing the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) particularly in relation to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) compliance the philosophy of tech neutrality affected how lawmakers drafted last years DLT Act.

Instead of writing brand new legislation for bitcoin and other blockchains, the government made ten separate amendments to pre-existing laws some more than a century old bringing them up-to-date while harmonizing the rules for traditional financial entities and newer fintech players. The need to get a handle on the market had become particularly apparent during the boom in Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) a few years earlier, Landerer says, referring to the cryptocurrency equivalent of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), in which tech firms raise funds by issuing digital tokens.

These legislative changes didnt come out of the blue, he insists. It was around 2017 that they became more salient, and the government decided it needed to do something.

Doing something doesn't mean kill it, but embrace it to the extent that it can be useful, while also making clear that it shouldn't be the Wild West ... [You want to] create a framework to enable innovative business models and financial services, but also account for the risks in terms of money laundering, in terms of financial stability, in terms of reputation.

Nino Landerer, head of capital markets & infrastructure at the State Secretariat for International ... [+] Finance (SIF), an administrative unit of the Swiss finance ministry

Asked about specific provisions in the DLT Act that have helped the crypto sector move forward, Landerer cites three areas.

First, the legal recognition of ledger-based securities that enable peer-to-peer transfers without a central intermediary; Sygnum has already exploited this change of contractual law by pioneering Art Security Tokens (ASTs). Second, the integration of DLT trading and settlement layers into one single step an upgrade that significantly boosts the efficiency of digital trading platforms, and thats only possible thanks to the immutable nature of blockchains. Third, the separation of cryptoassets during insolvencies.

There are many other areas that still require legal and regulatory clarity, of course chief among them DeFi protocols. But theres also no shortage of private-sector entities looking to work with SIF and FINMA as they navigate these uncharted waters.

You can be assured there's hundreds of pages going back and forth between the regulators and us, says Mathias Imbach, Sygnums co-founder and group chief executive. We see ourselves as a player who can help to address these challenges.

I'll give you some examples ... What is it on a bank's balance sheet if you have exposure to a decentralized liquidity pool? How do you manage that from an Excel accounting standpoint? What does it mean for your liquidity ratio? Is it that you need to have a financial audit on the smart contract every year? That's not possible because it's not a centralized entity. There's questions around who is the counterparty and what does that mean for the bank's risk management operation. There's questions around taxes.

Landerer admits that the cypherpunks would probably find it kind of absurd that regulated banks are now getting involved in DeFi markets a space that exists, by definition, to provide an alternative to banking.

But their involvement means that a field which might otherwise be deemed unscrupulous or disreputable is enjoying a mainstream makeover potentially mirroring bitcoins own evolution from a currency for drug dealers into a store of value for financial institutions. In DeFi many things are not as decentralized as they appear to be, or they would like to be, Landerer argues. Ultimately, when you look under the hood, its actually quite centralized.

For all the talk of tech neutrality, its hard not to wonder: if bitcoin gained popular support as the dominant medium of exchange in Switzerland, would the government seriously embrace its monetary function over, say, the Swiss franc or a future Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)?

Thats a decision for politicians and central banks to make. But, in Landerers mind at least, the question isnt as controversial as it might seem elsewhere in the world.

We have always had private money in Switzerland. Even today, much of the money we use as a medium of exchange is private money its credit from [commercial] banks. As citizens, we don't have access to central bank money in electronic form as of yet. So why would that change?

A more pertinent question, he suggests, is whether a decentralized, proof-of-work cryptocurrency like bitcoin is really capable of being a better medium of exchange than the public and private alternatives. Decentralization in itself is inherently inefficient from a technological standpoint, he points out, referring to the burden of distributing and validating blocks across a DLT network. Attempts are being made to address bitcoins scalability problem with second-layer, off-chain solutions like Lightning, but the jurys still out on their long-term viability.

Overall, thats not the question we need to answer as a regulator whether blockchain technology is really the gamechanging thing that the market thinks, Landerer says. [Our role] is to enable innovation, to allow it to flourish without creating too many tears.

And I think that's the fundamental attitude we have in Switzerland towards any technological innovation. We dont prejudge things.

See original here:
How The Swiss Government Is Helping Bitcoin & Blockchain Technology Grow Up - Forbes

Age: 68

Occupation: Nebraska Lieutenant Governor since 2013

Political party: Republican

Mike Foley was the state auditor for two terms then ran for governor in 2014, lost to Pete Ricketts, and was appointed by Ricketts as his running mate to become the current lieutenant governor. Foley couldve run for governor again, but he said he decided to run for auditor because of his skills and interests.

"I enjoyed my work as state auditor when I previously held that position. I was a very aggressive state auditor, worked very hard to expose waste, fraud inefficiency in government operations and root that out of the system," he said.

Foley intends to focus on the largest agency in state government, the Department of Health and Human Services, if elected. He said hes in the best position to be state auditor because he understands the complexities of state government and has worked there for 22 years, including six years in the Legislature.

"I look forward to returning to that [auditor's] office where I can do some more good work for the people of Nebraska, to protect their hard earned tax dollars from being wasted," he said.

Optometrist Katrina Tomsen of Upland is also running for the seat unopposed with the libertarian party.

Link:
Meet the Republican Candidates for State Auditor and Treasurer - Nebraska Public Media | News

Andrew Adams| State Journal-Register

Fifty-one years ago, the Occupational Safety and Health Act went into effect. Since 1989, the day has been commemorated byAmerican labor unions as Workers Memorial Day.

On Thursday morning,the AFL-CIO hosted its annual memorial service to honor the day, the first time its been held in-person since the start of the pandemic.

This year's service was dedicated to Deidre Silas, a Springfield resident and Department of Children and Family Services worker who was killed on the job earlier this year.

Silas' family attended the ceremony. Herfather,Roy Graham, placed a rose on a replica of the Illinois Workers Memorial statue in Silas' memory as part of the ceremony.

Past coverage: Family, friends, co-workers remember Silas during services at Union Baptist Church

Graham was joined by other relatives of workers who died on the job as well as their "union brothers and sisters," who placed 75 roses to honor the dead.

The 75 workers all died since the Workers Memorial Day tradition began in the 10-county area covered by the local AFL-CIO's Springfield and Central Illinois Trades and Labor Council. About half of Illinois' 22 AFL-CIO councils held similar events around the state.

Silas' death motivated several lawmakers to push for new standards for DCFS this spring, resulting in the legislature passing several new laws, including one granting DCFS workers the option to carry pepper spray or mace if they've been trained and one granting the family of those killed on the job ancillary benefits, such as health insurance.

"It's not a political issue, it's a workplace safety issue," said state Sen. Doris Turner, D-Springfield, who co-sponsored both of those bills.

Despite multiple attempts, Turner was unsuccessful at passing the Knight-Silas Legacy Act, a proposal first introduced by Rep. Tony McCombie, R-Savanna, after the death of Pamela Knight, another DCFS worker who died on the job. Turner said she is looking to bring that bill back up for consideration in this fall's legislative veto session.

"The only way way we can continue to put workplace safety on the front burner is to have days like thisto honor our brothers and sisters for the sacrifice they made and at the same time, advocate for laws that will protect workers, so we can eliminate workplace death and injuries,"said Tim Drea, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO.

In Illinois, 135 people died on the job in 2020,according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's just over one workplace fatality every three days.

Nationwide, there were 4,764 fatal work injuries, meaning somewhere in the country, a worker died every 111 minutes.

2020 saw the fewest workplace fatalities of any year since 2013 nationwide and the fewest workplace fatalities in Illinois since 1996, the first year for which statistics are available.

Though the numbers have been decreasing, labor advocates and officials within workplace safety agencies around the country believe that more must be done to reduce the number of workplace deaths.

"We have to keep fighting until every worker is able to go home to their familyat the end of the day, safe and healthy," said Natalicia Tracy, senior policy adviser at OSHA during the Department of Labor's Workers Memorial Day service.

Illinoisans are preparing to make a decision about the future of organized labor later this year, when a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the rights of workers to "organize and to bargain collectively" will be put to voters on the ballot at the Nov. 8 election.

"Workplace safety is why we're advocating for the passage of the Illinois Workers Rights Amendment," said Drea in a speech at the memorial.

The amendment was approved by the General Assembly in 2021, with the language that will appear on the ballot approved this year on April 9.

Read the language of the amendment.

"They normally vote for Democrats, Republicans, independents or Libertarians," said Drea. "This time, the first question on the ballot, they can vote for themselves."

Drea added that the amendment will help workers ensure their workplaces are safe in addition to protecting collective bargaining in Illinois.

The amendment gained bipartisan support in both chambers of the Illinois legislature, passing on a 49-7 vote in the Senate and 80-30-3 vote in the House. All of those who voted against the amendment are Republicans.

But others have already started to fight the measure in the courts.

Last week, lawyers from the conservative Liberty Justice Center and the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank,filed a lawsuit against the state board of elections arguing that the language of the amendment is too broad.

"If Illinois were seeking solely to make right-to-work unconstitutional in Illinois, the phrasing would have reflected that, as it did in a previous version of this amendment filed in 2019," said Mailee Smith,director of labor policy and staff attorney at the Illinois Policy Institute in a statement."Instead, the current phrasing creates a litany of problems, could lead to unparalleled power by a special interest group and most importantly, is unconstitutional.

Smith and lawyers from the Liberty Justice Center argue in the lawsuitthat because the amendment regulates private sector unions, it conflicts with the federal National Labor Relations Act. They say because the federal constitution says federal law takes precedence over state laws,the amendment is unconstitutional.

This is the first time the two conservative organizations have partnered since they argued the U.S. Supreme Court caseJanus v. AFSCME, in which the Supreme Court found that government employees cannot be required to pay union fees as part of their employment.

Here is the original post:
As Illinois gears up to vote on workers' rights, unions remember those killed on the job - The State Journal-Register

A bipartisan effort is underway, with Morgan County Democrats joining in, petitioning Georgias State Election Board to provide emergency paper ballots ahead of the upcoming 2022 elections.

Georgia Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians have joined forces to advocate for the use of paper ballots to enhance election security and post-election audits.

So far, more than 50 federal and state candidates, along with political party committees across the state, have signed on to the petition, including familiar local candidates Brett Mauldin, a Republican running for State Senate District 17, Kacy Morgan, a Democrat running for State Senate District 17, Charles Baldwin, a Democrat running for Morgan County Commissioner District 2, Claudia Crenshaw, a Democrat running for Morgan County School Board District 5, and Tabitha Johnson-Green, a Democrat running for Georgias 10th Congressional District. Even gubernatorial candidates have signed on to the petition, including Republicans David Perdue and Kandiss Taylor.

The Morgan County Democrats committee also signed on to the petition with second vice chair Jeanne Dufort leading the recruitment effort of various political candidates and committees to join the effort.

Trust in elections must be earned. Working with Republican and Libertarian leaders to call on the State Election Board to act swiftly to protect our elections gives me hope that we can find common ground when the stakes are high, said Dufort.

Getting ahead of this, by using the EPB system designed for quick response when elections cant proceed as planned will go a long way towards protecting our vote.

The bipartisan petition comes on the heels of the Federal DHSs Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) conducting a review of serious vulnerabilities found in Georgias Dominion electronic touch-screen voting system. CISAs ongoing investigation was prompted by a study conducted by Dr. Alex Halderman.

According to ABC News, Halderman said in sworn declarations filed publicly with the court that he examined the Dominion Voting Systems machines for 12 weeks and identified multiple severe security flaws that would allow bad actors to install malicious software.

Advocates are also concerned about the recent warning from U.S. officials that Vladimir Putin could interfere with American election infrastructure as revenge for aiding Ukraine in the ongoing war.

Dufort joined the effort in hopes the bipartisan nature of the initiative would persuade state election board officials to act.

The Secretary of State [Brad Raffensperger] is refusing to act. We are calling on the State Election Board to use their authority to protect our elections by temporarily replacing the touchscreens with standard paper ballots for scanning, and expanding audits, said Dufort.

Its how most states use their Dominion voting system to ensure auditability. Our goal is to address the significantly increased risk level in the use of Georgias electronic touchscreen system. Georgia is at higher risk than most states, because we require vulnerable electronic tablets and printers to mark ballots for in-person voting, and we use outside contractors to configure elections centrally while most states configure machines locally.

The bipartisan petition also advocated for paper ballots in the event of an audit after an election.

We also ask that you also require extensive post-election audits of the scanner tabulations of hand marked ballots to verify the outcomes of races, said the petition to the State Election Board. Together these steps will rebuild Georgias voter confidence by providing assurance that Georgias election outcomes reflect the will of the people.

Visit link:
Morgan County Democrats and local candidates join bipartisan effort demanding paper ballots ahead of the 2022 Midterm elections - Morgan County...

In an April 16 interview with New York City billionaire and budding media mogul John Catsimatidis, Governor Kathy Hochul affirmed that she would not shut down the state to deal with the spike in COVID-19 cases caused by the BA.2 variant. Not that anyone expected her to. No, at this point, New Yorkand apparently the rest of the countryis functionally done with COVID mitigation.

Of course, this virus isnt done with us. No matter how many wartime metaphors are thrown at it, a substantial chunk of the population seems unwilling to acknowledge a simple truth: a pandemic is not over until its over, and what endemic means is definitely up for debate.

Once again, the Northeast is leading a rise in US cases. In New York, the 7-day positivity rate as of April 21 is over 5 percent and climbing (in neighboring Vermont, the rate is double that.) A lack of testing may obscure the real amount of spread at present. But the difference this timeseemingly more than ever before, and particularly notable in the blue statesis the unwillingness to do pretty much anything about it.

In fact, unwillingness puts it charitably; it implies there is a choice to be had. Truthfully, Hochuls comments were redundant precisely because the possibility of choice has been forfeitedmaybe long ago, certainly after the first Omicron wave. We cannot wait any longer, we must get back to normal!

Vaccination, accordingly, has become the only mitigation method. While crucial in reducing severity of illness and likelihood of death, vaccines are only one method of mitigationand a method with serious limitations. Vaccines fail in many cases to significantly protect the 3 percent of the population who are immunocompromised from so-called mild Omicron; it also does a dubious amount to reduce transmission.

Last winter, I spent a few months reporting in The River on the anti-vax group Do We Need This?, a Columbia County-based coalition opposed not only to vaccination, but to virtually all efforts at pandemic mitigation. What struck me in my communication with members of this groupmore than their deeply unscientific approach to the coronaviruswas the devaluing of human life implicit in their approach to the pandemic. They would deny it, of course, but the enactment of their worldview in America in 2022 would produce a coldly libertarian reality in which lives are simply unprotectedeven when we have the meansand we accept consigning weak, elderly, immunocompromised, and otherwise vulnerable people to serious illness and death. (It is the exact same belief, parroted in cruder and more aggressive form, by the MAGA movement and the far rightof which the left-libertarian anti-vaxxers are fast becoming a part.)

In New York, about 75 percent of the population is fully vaccinatedwhich is good, if likely not good enough. But to note this only obscures a darker sentiment that I cannot shake: the anti-vax argument has won the day. The COVID-skeptics view of the pandemic and its supposed mildness, their arguments about costs versus benefits, their fundamental privilege and unwillingness to care for othersthis is the ethos that predominates.

This view isnt exactly new. Even at the beginning of the crisis, the willingness of the privileged to abscond to areas like the Hudson Valley was plenty evident, while those sheltering in the city and suburbs cheered from their balconies as essential workers (who were functionally deemed expendable) were made to stay out and continue stocking shelves and delivering groceries.

But there was at least some sense of collective sacrifice and a perceived need to mitigate; now the willingness to accept total uncontained spread is as pervasive as its ever been. Liberal pundits like Leana Wen or David Leonhardt make careers insisting as much in the papers of record, laundering the guilt of those who have, in many cases, never been deeply threatened by this pandemic and now simply dont want to be inconvenienced.

What could be done now? In theory, re-imposing indoor mask mandates (as Philadelphia has done), permanently expanded testing and tracing, full coverage for the poorly insured and uninsured for COVID testing and treatmentand if necessary, targeted closures or shutdownsare all within the capacity of even a society as broken as this one. Above all, perhaps, should be clear messaging that the pandemic is not yet over.

But, as Hochul insisted, none of thats going to be done. The state and country will ride through this wave, just like they did all the other ones, and manycertainly more than necessarymay die or become seriously ill, including with long COVID, because we have collectively agreed to do nothing.

The pandemic might have been an opportunity to have a discussion about priorities, particularly the chronic health inequalities evident in the state and country. Instead, the most terrible disparities of this society have been reaffirmed; a persistent selfishness and unwillingness to suffer the most mild inconveniences for the sake of protecting vulnerable neighbors has won the day; a grotesque American libertarianism is strengthened. And too many people are okay with it.

The Riveris a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinion of columnists and editorial writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the newsroom.

See the article here:
The Anti-Vaxxers Won. This Is Pandemic Country. - The River - The River Newsroom

TOPEKA Rep. Tatum Lee and Sen. Mark Steffen heartily embraced anti-vax activists Monday at the Capitol ahead of the Legislatures consideration of limited-government policy tied to the COVID-19 pandemic and potential overrides of a cluster of vetoes issued by Gov. Laura Kelly.

The plan was for the House and Senate to devote the day to weighing bills left unfinished when lawmakers adjourned for a three-week break. The list includes bills on K-12 education budget, the final state budget package, reform of the states 6.5% sales tax on groceries, legalization of sports wagering and a sweeping bill approved by the Senate but not the House that would tackle libertarians objections to COVID-19 directives.

On Tuesday, legislative leadership wants to dive into override votes on a transgender sports ban on girls and women athletes, a parental bill of rights for public education, a ban on municipal government limits on single-use plastic, expansion of short-term health plans and new limits on access to food stamps.

Lee, a Ness City Republican not averse to criticizing GOP leadership, lauded the group affiliated with Kansans for Health Freedom who pressed their case for a trio of bills that havent cleared the Legislature. She demanded House Speaker Ron Ryckman, R-Olathe, allow each to be adopted by the House.

Ron Ryckman, you better get these bills passed, said Lee, who alleged backroom deals were being hatched as she spoke to the protesters. Thank you so much for caring, standing and participating. None of this is worth it unless were standing together.

The anti-vax coalition demanded passage of House Bill 2280 opening the door to treatments not fully endorsed by federal regulators, Senate Bill 489 inhibiting ability of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and local government health directors to issue pandemic orders and Senate Bill 541 prohibiting directives on vaccination passports, facial coverings, contract tracing, church attendance and student vaccinations.

Steffen, a Republican from the Hutchinson area who has been under scrutiny by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, said House Bill 2280 wasnt dead but was on life support.

Is the light growing dim? Well, yes, but it is on everything, he said. That doesnt mean its time to give up. Its time to try harder.

Steffen said the board regulating physicians in Kansas, such as himself, had to be changed to prevent the heavy corporate doctor influence on the board. The KBHA should be more respectful of physicians such as himself who advocate off-label drug treatments for COVID-19 not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Kansas Board of Healing Arts has to be reorganized. It has to be, Steffen said. the associations Kansas Medical Society, chiropractic society, osteopathic society they are the ones that are picking the board members. They dont pick a group of doctors to represent true Kansans. They pick corporate doctors. Theyre not picking the average Joe doctor like myself. That has to change.

He said the regulatory scrutiny of doctors not in the medical mainstream blunted early treatment of COVID-19 and created suffering and death for people with cancers.

So, lets keep our head down. Lets keep charging forward. Lets hold people accountable. Lets stand for the truth. Lets make this state better. Lets make this country better, Steffen said.

The crowd created funnels of protesters outside the House and Senate chambers that legislators had to walk through. They hoisted signs that read: We the people want health freedom, Let doctors save lives and Do whats right for Kansans. They chanted pass the House freedom bills and stop medical tyranny.

At the request of Mike Brown, a GOP candidate for secretary of state, said he lost his seat on the Johnson County Commission in 2020 because he was such an intense champion for people who didnt want to bend a knee to government during the pandemic. At his urging, the anti-vax activists chanted U! S! A! U! S! A! loud enough to satisfy his sense that they had been heard through the five-floor statehouse.

Senate President Ty Masterson, R-Andover, said he was focused on Senate Bill 541, which was approved by the Senate 24-14 but not taken up by the House. Apparently, House negotiators wont agree to meet for discussion of the Senates work on the bill.

The board bill would limit cities responding to infectious diseases to issuance of 30-day ordinances that limited the size of gatherings, restricted operation of businesses or controlled movement of people. Anyone harmed by such local government orders to file a lawsuit that would be heard by a judge within 72 hours. No school or educational institution could issue vaccination documents or separate students based on vaccination status. Violation of provisions in the bill would be a misdemeanor crime.

In addition, the bill would forbid mask mandates, restrictions on religious liberty and would declare children enrolling in daycare facilities or schools would be exempt from immunizations if required by the KDHE secretary based on a written statement signed by a parent or guardian outlining a sincerely held religious belief.

Continued here:
Kansas activists opposed to COVID-19 mandates greet legislators with rally at Capitol - Kansas Reflector