Category Archives: Libertarianism

By Randy Baron| Holland

Let's not have a double standard. One standard will do just fine. George Carlin

Unity will only happen when there is action, not simply happy talk.There is a deep divide in this country because rules do not apply to the Democratic Party.That creates resentment with Republicans, Independentsand Libertarians.

Below are some examples of double standards that need to be dealt with before our country can heal:

Freedom of speech

Standard 1: Former President Trumps second impeachment was based on the claim that his Jan.6 speech incited violence. What mainstream media outlets and Democrat impeachment managers omitted to deceive the public: Trump told his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Standard 2:ComedianKathy Griffinreshared Nov. 4 the beheaded Trump photo that stalled her career in 2017.Did Griffin get shut down by Twitter? Categorically, no!This grotesque material brought over 63,000 likes and 15,000 retweets.

Sexual assault allegations

Standard 1: During the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, Democrats and mediaset a standard of believing all women who come forth with sexual assault allegations.Christine Blasey Ford was allowed to share her story with the nation.There was a call for Kavanaugh to remove himself from consideration for the Supreme Court.

Standard 2:Tara Reade, an alleged sexual assault victim of President Joe Biden, was never taken seriously from the start by the mainstream media.To get her voice heard, it was "60 Minutes Australia," that aired her story.Reades story is compelling and heartbreaking.

Criminal charges of willful neglect of duty

Standard 1: Attorney General. Dana Nessel brought criminal charges against former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyderfor willful neglect of duty, in connection with the 2014 Flint water crisis.

Standard 2: Gov. Gretchen Whitmerchose to continue a deadly policy of allowing infected COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, while all other governors have backed down and changed course when they saw the consequences, including New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, also a Democrat, back in May. To date, Nessel has not brought any charges against Whitmer.

Congressional discipline of members

Standard 1: U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, was stripped of committee assignments by the majority of House Democrats over her past incendiary comments.

Standard 2: U.S. Rep. Cori Bush, Democrat from Missouri, recently seemed to supporta prison riot In St. Louis.Bush continues her duties on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees.

Insurrection

Standard 1:Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican,tweetedthe rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 should be prosecuted to the "fullest extent of the law." The majority of Americans regardless of political ideology agree with Graham.

Standard 2:Black Lives Matter and Antifa march streets of Washington, D.C., on Feb. 6, skirmishing with police, threatening to burn down the city, and intimidating diners at outdoor restaurants.CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and other major networks did not even bother to cover this insurrection. Perhaps, they would have called it another peaceful protest like an earlier riotinKenosha, Wis..

Follow the science

Standard 1:Wearing a mask (or two or three), social distancing, hand sanitizer are all important steps in slowing the spread of COVID-19.

Standard 2:An embryo is a life and if we follow science, we know it will become a baby.Abortion is murdering babies.

Americans will always have differences regarding political ideologies, religious philosophyand values.That is what makes America great.

Double standards, however, divide not unite.Am I too idealistic to hope for one standard?

Randy Baron is a resident of Holland. He can be reached atrandybaron5@gmail.com.

Visit link:
My Take: Here's a unity solution: Have one standard - HollandSentinel.com

Seventy-seven third-party candidates whose vote totals were greater than the winners margin of victory

When third-party candidates run in elections, sometimes they can receive more votes than the margin of victory in the race. We looked at last years races where that happened within our coverage scope of more than 10,000 races. Below are the results of that analysis.

In 2020, there were 77 third-party or independent candidates who received more votes than the margin of victory in their election. Presidential candidates were not included in the analysis. These third-party candidates included:

Here are some quick stats about those candidates:

In 2018, Ballotpedia identified 99 third-party candidates using the criteria above. Those 99 included five candidates for Congress, 21 running for a statewide office, 69 running for state-level offices, and four running for a local office within Ballotpedias coverage scope.

Libertarians made up a greater proportion of third-party candidates who received more votes than the margin of victory in their election (43) in 2018 than in 2020. That year, the only other party to run five or more of these candidates was the Green Party, with five. There were also 30 candidates who ran as independents.

There were five independent candidates who ran in both 2020 and 2018. In each election, they received more votes than the margin of victory. Four of those candidates ran for higher education boards in Michigan. The fifth, Will Hyman (L), ran to represent District 48 in West Virginias House of Delegates.

Keep reading

Adrian Dickey (R) defeated Mary Stewart (D) in the Jan. 26 special election for Iowas 41st Senate District. Dickey defeated Stewart 55.3% to 44.7%.

The special election was called after Sen. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) resigned effective Jan. 2, 2021, to be seated in the U.S. House of Representatives. Democratic candidate Rita Hart contested the Nov. 3 election results. Three recounts were conducted, the last of which showing Miller-Meeks winning by six votes. Hart contested the election with the House Administration Committee, and on Jan. 21, Miller-Meeks filed a motion asking Congress to dismiss Harts challenge of the election results. The House committee has not yet ruled in the case. Click here for the full story.

Miller-Meeks served from 2019 to 2021. Dickey will fill the remaining two years in Miller-Meekss term.

Dickeys 10.6 percentage point margin of victory is the largest in the 41st District since 2010 when Roby Smith (R) defeated Richard Clewell (D) by 19 percentage points.

Iowa has a Republican state government trifecta. A trifecta exists when one political party simultaneously holds the governors office and majorities in both state legislative chambers. Republicans control the Iowa state Senate by a margin of 32-18.

As of January, 24 state legislative special elections have been scheduled for 2021 in 16 states. Between 2011 and 2019, an average of 77 special elections took place each year. Iowa held 22 special elections from 2010 to 2020.

Learn more

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has been in its current session since Oct. 5its first full session where oral arguments are being conducted via teleconference. Heres an update on the October 2020-2021 term.

On Jan. 25, SCOTUS issued one opinion in a case argued during the current term, bringing the number of opinions issued this term to 12.

In the case Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc., the court issued a per curiam opiniona ruling given collectively by the whole courtdismissing the case as improvidently granted. Put another way, the court concluded that it should not have granted review in the case.

The courts next argument sitting is scheduled to begin on Feb. 22. So far, the court has agreed to hear 60 cases during this term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic.Keep reading

Continue reading here:
77 third-party candidates received more votes than the winner's margin of victory in 2020 Ballotpedia News - Ballotpedia News

Two multiracial Biden voters meet through Curiosity Club and learn that a political disagreement can be the start of a conversation instead of the end of one.

Jerome Hunter and Mellina White met at a virtual Curiosity Club dinner party on November 19, 2020, shortly after the 2020 presidential election.

To watch a 6-minute film from Mellina and Jerome's Curiosity Club dinner, go here.

Curiosity Club is KUOWs bookless book club testing the possibility that a shared meal and public radio stories can transform a group of strangers into a community. I'm the producer and facilitator of this nerdy experiment.

The night Jerome and Mellina met, there were fourteen of us gathered for our virtual dinner party. We talked about pandemic roller skating, the #MeToo movement, Black joy, and, of course, the election.

Days later, I was still thinking about an interaction that got a little tense between Mellina and Jerome towards the end of the dinner. And so, in the spirit of Curiosity Club, I invited both of them back to Zoom for a follow up.

Fearlessly facing the possibility of an awkward conversation, they both agreed, and the three of us came together to find out if a political disagreement could be the start of a conversation, instead of the end of one.

At the heart of their disagreement was Mellinas insistence that in order to move forward, the Left and the Center have to do a better job of understanding and connecting with Trump voters.

Jerome still wasnt convinced by the end of our conversation. However, there was empathy and laughter along the way anyway as the pair explored the perks and challenges of being both mixed race and surprisingly optimistic in America.

Producer Kristin Leong talks with Jerome Hunter and Mellina White to explore the perks and challenges of being multiracial, while agreeing to disagree about what will bridge the divide in America following the fraught 2020 election. (13 min)

To learn more about Curiosity Club and to find stories from our nerdy supper club experiment, visit KUOW.org/CuriosityClub.

To find answers to FAQs about Curiosity Club, go here.

To be the first to know when the application cycle opens for the next cohort of Curiosity Club, follow our Community Engagement team on Twitter @KUOWengage, and sign up for our monthly KUOW Conversations newsletter here.

KUOW is committed to ongoing feedback and conversation with our community and we invite your participation. If you are willing to share your thoughts or have ideas for a conversation KUOW could pursue regarding this story (or any other) you can email us at engage@kuow.org, leave a voicemail at 206-221-1926, or text the word feedback to 206-926-9955 to leave a text response.

We may be in touch with you for further conversation, or about publishing what you tell us as part of a potential follow-up piece on community response. Please make sure you leave your name and your contact info.

Go here to see the original:
Empathize with Trump voters? A Progressive and a Libertarian agree to disagree - KUOW News and Information

RALEIGH, N.C. The Constitution Party and the Green Party are no longer recognized political parties in North Carolina.

Both parties failed to turn out the required 2 percent of the total vote for their candidate for governor or for presidential electors in the 2020 general election. Voters who register or update their registrations will no longer be able to affiliate with either party.

The State Board of Elections will meet on Feb. 23 to decide when to change the affiliation of voters registered with the Constitution and Green parties to unaffiliated status. State law says the State Board shall not make this change until at least 90 days after the general election.

The Constitution Party and the Green Party did not meet the threshold to continue as recognized political parties in North Carolina, said Karen Brinson Bell, executive director of the State Board of Elections. The parties may be recognized once again if they meet the requirements for a political party as specified in state statute.

The Constitution Party of North Carolina was first recognized as a political party in June 2018; it had about 4,600 members for the 2020 election. The Green Party was recognized in March 2018; it had about 3,600 members statewide.

There are 17 voters registered with the Green Party and 49 voters registered with the Constitution Party in the county, according to Stanly County Board of Elections Director Kimberly Blackwelder.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party requested to continue as a recognized political party because its candidate for president was on the ballot in at least 35 states, meeting the 70 percent threshold required by law.

The State Board of Elections is expected to consider the continued certification of the Libertarian Party at a meeting on Feb. 23. Currently, about 45,000 N.C. voters are registered Libertarians.

Per state law, a recognized political party is:

Any group of voters which, at the most recent general election, polled for its candidate for governor, or for presidential electors, at least 2 percent of the entire vote cast for governor or presidential electors.

Any group of voters that files with the State Board of Elections petitions for the creation of a new political party signed by 0.25 percent of the total number of voters in the most recent election for governor. Also, the petition must be signed by at least 200 registered voters from three N.C. congressional districts.

Any group of voters that files documentation that the group of voters had a candidate nominated on the general election ballot of at 70 percent of the states in the most recent presidential election.

See more here:
STATE: Constitution, Green parties no longer recognized in North Carolina - The Stanly News & Press | The Stanly News & Press - Stanly News...

In his book, A Libertarian Walks into a Bear, the journalist Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling details the turbulent, in some ways tragic history of the ambitious political project to turn a small, New Hampshire town into a free market, capitalist paradise. In the process, he relates how those pursuing the project ran into the complications caused by nature, the people already living there, and eachother.

And I dont have enough good things to say aboutit.

A Libertarian Walks Into A Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate An American Town (And Some Bears) by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling (Hardcover, PublicAffairs)

From the entry point of interviewing a disabled veteran about her troubles getting the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover the expenses of making her rural home actually accessible to her, Hongoltz-Hetling felt the need to delve into U.S. history, political extremism, environmentalism, philosophy, government, class, parasitism, religion, and fire safety.

Across two hundred and fifty-three pages that often read as much like a novel as a work of nonfiction with its intrigue and frequent credible threats of gun violence, he paints a series of surprisingly sympathetic portraits of figures who its also clear most would not willingly share a community with given their strong political opinions on what obligations, but mostly lack thereof, members of a community actually owe one another.

Starting in 2004, several hundred people from around the United Stateslargely white, largely male but exceedingly diverse in their eccentricitiesmoved to the about 1,100-person city of Grafton, N.H., as part of the Free Town Project.

A small core had picked it specifically thinking the people there were already predisposed to liberty and anti-government sentiment and would welcome the changes brought by this unannounced influx.

Largely, this was not existing residents feelings toward the new arrivals.

If youre a reader of the Cascadia Advocate, there wont be a surprise in Hongoltz-Hetlings descriptions chapter by chapter, person by person, of the corrosive, compounding effect had on society through a concerted effort to keep taxes low by avoiding investment in any public resources or services.

Even the roads worsened, but the town also refused to take ownership of any new public spaces, such as an old church offered by the previous congregation for free. They frequently voted down funding for such needs as the volunteer fire department, and therefore regularly had need of the resources of the surrounding communities which did fund their own departments sufficiently.

One of the major points of division between local Libertarians was overfires.

One of the existing residents and, by most standards, fringe political figures John Babiarz had helped kick off everything by inviting outside Libertarians to come take over the town, but he also was the Grafton Volunteer Fire Chief and took fire safety quite seriously.

This makes sense to the rest of us as fires are not a threat that can be privatized; actions on ones own sovereign property affects everyone around them as well. But this is also dangerous logic if naturally extended to, well, any other subject, so Babiarz found himself on the outs when he came to put out dangerous campfires during dry seasons, thereby representing the repressive government jackboot he claimed to oppose, or at least this is what he represented to even more extreme members of the community.

The book, subtitled, The Utopian Plot To Liberate An American Town (And Some Bears) does keep coming back to that problem of overly familiar to the point of aggressive bears showing no real fear of people and even willing to invade isolated peopleshomes.

Like with fires like with many things the fundamental assumption of those in the community that what I do with my property is my business does not hold up against the reality that some people living in unzoned camps and no garbage collection service will provide a lot of food for bears; some people covering their trash in cayenne pepper to try to keep bears away; some stringing up electric fences; some shooting at them; and at least one woman going out of her way to buy doughnuts because she thought they looked awfully thin, is very confusing for the bears! The conditions a person creates on one sovereign property does not stop magically at the boundary line of sovereignty.

All sorts of utopian projects run into challenges, and perhaps its not fair to blame these Libertarians for not having foreseen the troublesome effects of inconsistent bear policies when they chose a location.

But if the last year of pandemic has taught us anything, its that this sort of political and philosophical orientation isnt something thats just a weird quirk or harmless bit of polite, abstract disagreement.

The philosophy boils down to, If I have the power to do something, I have the right to do it, and not only the right to do it, it is good for me to do so and an increase in liberty, regardless of what impact there is on anyoneelse.

It is a real danger.

We see it has a real cost, socially, publicly, universally. The tyranny of this sort of liberty has meant many of us with what would be called underlying conditions on our death certificates have in our homes for coming up on ayear.

You cant tell me I have to wear a mask, or close my business, or not travel, or get vaccinated. Or tell me not to bring my gun anyway I want to defend myself with it, even when Im instigating confrontations and taking umbrage at perceived slights.

Multiple times, the author relates how he is implicitly and explicitly threatened by the people hes interviewing, usually for just being a journalist, asking questions. Yeah, strict constitutionalists respect the First Amendment, but what does it say in the Second about the right to bear arms

In a pivotal chapter, just before he tells the story of how, in 2012 after many threatening could-have-beens, a bear actually came to attack a middle-aged, single woman inside her own rural home, nearly killing her among that would-be Libertarian utopia, Hongoltz-Hetling includes this short passage from theBible:

While Elisha was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead! And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of theboys.

2 Kings 2:2324

This story is one of the most infamous passages in the entirety of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and deservedlyso.

Traditionally, Jewish commenters have characterized the prophet Elishas behavior in negative terms, drunk with his newfound power, left alone after his master Elijah went up to heaven in a chariot but newly blessed with a double portion of Elijahs spirit. For early rabbis, the debate was not over whether it was OK to use miraculous powers to murder dozens of young lads (it was not); the debate was over how many miracles were included as described; was it just the bears or the appearance of a forest, too? The related phrase neither bears nor forest (lo dubim ve lo yaar) even became idiomatic for something that never happened.

For some Christians, particularly white evangelicals, the takeaway from the story is quite different. They tend to tie themselves into knots to explain how actually, the 42 dead lads might have been young men as old and as thirty.

And actually,baldhead was a terrible sort of insult, and meaning they were insulting Elijah and God, not Elisha. And anyway, they shouldnt have jeered a man as powerful as a prophet of God, so actually,they had it coming.

Right-wing Libertarians are disproportionately Protestant, but even when atheist or otherwise religiously unaffiliated, cultural Protestantism predominatesCalvinism without any gods but Mammon superseding.

Following the attack, a gang of the Libertarians in Grafton eventually expressed their understanding of freedom by ambushing multiple hibernating bears and blowing them away in a hail of gunfire as they slept in theirdens.

This was good, in their minds, because it wasnt the government, and they and their guns had the power to do so. In the long run, it ended up not solving the problem but just hurting a lot of people and animals under the maximal pursuit of narrow selfishness, but whatever.

Thats the price of freedom.

View post:
Book Review: When A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear, nobody wins (except the reader) - NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan said federal intelligence agencies top priority, under the leadership of President Joe Biden, is seeking to root out people in pro-Trump insurgency groups filled with white supremacists.

I know, looking forward, that the members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed are now moving in laser-like fashion, to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that weve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength, and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists so authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, and even libertarians, Brennan said on MSNBC.

The decision to target these groups, Brennan admitted, stemmed from the recent riot at the Capitol and the administrations belief that then-President Donald Trump incited an insurrection among his supporters that could continue to be a threat to our democracy and our republic.

Unfortunately, I think there has been this momentum that has been generated as a result of unfortunately the demagogue of rhetoric of people that just departed government, but also those who continue in the halls of Congress, Brennan continued. And so I really do think that the law enforcement, Homeland Security Intelligence, and even the defense officials are doing everything possible to root out what seems to be a very, very serious and insidious threat to our democracy and our republic.

Despite repeatedly insisting that Obamas intelligence agencies conducted no spying on Donald Trumps campaign, a claim contradicted by inspector general reports, a two-year special counsel probe, congressional inquiries, and continued investigation, Brennan has repeatedly lied about the role Christopher Steeles dossier played in the FBI and CIAs review of disproven collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He is also well-known for other public lies on TV and to Congress while under oath.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

See the article here:
Brennan: Intel Agencies To Probe The 'Bigots' Behind US 'Insurgency' - The Federalist

The Allies entered Auschwitz 76 years ago this week, far too late for the 1.1 million men, women, children, and babies, nearly all of them Jews, who had been murdered there in the previous five years. Among the dead were my fathers parents, sisters, and brothers, who had died in the Auschwitz gas chambers the previous spring. The camps liberation came too late for my father as well. Ten days earlier, he had been sent on a forced march to the west, ending up at the Ebensee concentration camp in Austria. Not until May 1945 did the US Armys 80th Infantry Division reach Ebensee. By then, my father, who was 19, was nearly dead. The Americans arrived just in time to save his life.

In 2005, the UN General Assembly designated Jan. 27, the day Auschwitz was liberated, as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The occasion will be marked by many memorial and educational events, online this year because of the pandemic. Doubtless there will be words of tribute to the dwindling band of survivors like my father, who is now 95.

Yet for much of his life, my father didnt think of himself as a Holocaust survivor. The term itself only came into use in the late 1970s, and in any case he, like most survivors, spent the decades after the war engaged in the business of living: finding work, joining communities, getting married, raising a family. Not until he was nearly in his 50s would my father have considered Holocaust survivor to be an identity, let alone one with a unique moral and historical resonance.

But it was different for their children. We grew up with it.

Unlike my father, whom I never knew to dwell on what had happened to him during the Holocaust, I barely remember a time when awareness of his experience didnt haunt me. From early childhood, I knew that my fathers family had been murdered by Jew-haters. I vividly recall myself as a little boy, paging again and again through a book with photographs from the Nazi era, gripped by the understanding that they were connected to my family history. When I was in second or third grade, I would write Hitler on the sole of my shoe, so that I could obliterate the name as I walked.

I have been conscious of my identity as the child of a Holocaust survivor virtually all my life. That identity has affected me in multiple ways, above all, perhaps, when it comes to my political and civic values.

My most deeply rooted ideological conviction is a deep distrust of coercive government. Since my teens I have been a libertarian-leaning conservative, an outlook molded by my knowledge that the horrors of the Holocaust were engineered by government by a totalitarian regime empowered to act with impunity and supported by a vast, intrusive bureaucracy. That some government is necessary I accept, but too much government, in my view, will always be a graver threat than too little. Power tends to corrupt, Lord Acton famously observed. The Holocaust is the ultimate demonstration of how murderous the corruption of a too-powerful state can become.

A related conviction is my intense antipathy to glorifying politicians. I realize that public support is vital in a democratic republic, yet there is an intoxicating derangement in crowds that gives me the creeps. The surging, enthusiastic adoration that political figures as different as Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Sarah Palin inspired in their followers filled me not with admiration, but with something closer to alarm. More sinister by far, to my mind, was the cult of personality that formed around Donald Trump. In no way do I liken American democracy today to what occurred in Germany in the 1930s. All the same, I have never been able to see images of mass rallies, even rallies for causes I admire, without a sense of foreboding.

Equally menacing is an obsession with race and racial distinctions. Hitlers Germany deemed Aryans the highest race and Jews the lowest. In their fanaticism on the subject, the Nazis demonized Jews, denied them legal rights, deprived them of their livelihoods, drove them from their homes, and finally destroyed them by the millions. As the son of a Holocaust survivor, I consider all racial categories fundamentally illegitimate. I abhor the labeling and sorting of Americans by race. Classifications and distinctions based on race or color, argued the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in a 1947 brief, have no moral or legal validity in our society. That has always been my position. It makes me heartsick that 50 years after the civil rights movement, Americas leading institutions have become more race-obsessed than ever.

Im sure that some of the stands I take in public-policy debates have been influenced by my experience growing up with a father who survived the death camps and being raised in a community that was home to other survivors. I fervently opposed the Bush administrations reliance on torture to extract information from Al Qaeda detainees, for example. I have always condemned the scapegoating of immigrants, whether it came from the left or from the right. I have no patience with foreign-policy realists who downplay human rights in dealing with other governments.

Above and beyond politics, however, my lifelong awareness of the Holocaust has made it impossible for me not to know that human goodness is fragile. It doesnt come naturally but must be honed and practiced, etched into our nature one good deed at a time. Civility and civilization are only veneers, stretched like a bandage over an ugly wound. More easily than we like to think, that bandage can be pulled off, exposing the putrescence beneath. It was pulled off in Europe in the middle of the 20th century, and the consequences were diabolical for the world, for the Jews, for my father and his family. Those consequences are never far from my mind. They shape my thinking to this day.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jeff.jacoby@globe.com. Elements of this column were adapted from Arguable, his weekly e-mail newsletter. To subscribe to Arguable, visit bitly.com/Arguable.

Go here to see the original:
The politics of an Auschwitz survivors son - The Boston Globe

Sedition charges in the works for Capitol rioters. On Tuesday, the Department of Justice announced that it will bring sedition charges against people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The punishment for seditious conspiracy is up to 20 years in prison.

So far, the Capitol riot has spawned more than 150 federal cases and more than 50 cases in D.C. court, FBI Assistant Director in Charge Steven D'Antuono said yesterday, adding that the FBI has opened more than 400 subject case files. (Back on January 15, only 42 people faced federal charges.)

As for seditious conspiracy cases: "Yes, we're working on those cases, and I think those results will bear fruit very soon," D'Antuono said.

Calls for sedition charges haven't stopped with people who stormed the Capitol, with some raising the possibility of sedition charges against politicians who spread election fraud conspiracy theories or encouraged people to come to D.C. to protest.

Under federal law, the crime of seditious conspiracy is defined as two or more people conspiring "to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof."

While this might technically apply to some folks involved in the events of January 6, "sedition charges are almost always a terrible idea," cautions Reason's J.D. Tuccille.

"Sedition prosecutions in the U.S. have a particularly shameful history," asBloomberg's Noah Feldman pointed out last fall in a piece titled "Sedition laws are the last resort of weak governments."

Not only is their historical use full of horror stories, but their very nature makes them ripe for abuse at any time, as a catchall threat against anyone who challenges government policy or criticizes government actions. They can also be used to escalate criminal acts at any protest around the country into a federal case, as former Attorney General William Barr endorsed last year.

Many of the people who stormed the Capitol deserve some charges, and seditious conspiracy might seem as good as any at a glance. But reviving the use of sedition charges like this could backfire against free speech and protests more broadly.

Law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh explains a little bit more about sedition and seditious conspiracy charges:

This is just a special case of the broader proposition that conspiring to commit a crime can itself be a crime. You can be punished under state law for conspiring to commit murder or theft or what have you. You can be punished under federal law for conspiring to commit bank robbery, or to defraud the federal government. Likewise, you can be punished under the "seditious conspiracy" statute for conspiring to illegally oppose the enforcement of the law.

The current federal statute on sedition is, at the very least, much less severe than its historical counterpart:

[Seditious conspiracy] is quite a different statute from the Sedition Act of 1798 (or from the common-law crime of seditious libel), which punished (among other things) false and malicious speech intended to defame the federal government. And to the extent that the seditious conspiracy law punishes agreements to commit crime, which may be expressed by speech, such conspiracy is viewed as constitutionally unprotected, because it is speech integral to the criminal conduct that is being planned. For more on this, seeU.S. v. Rahman(2d Cir. 1999).

Republicans declare impeachment trial itself unconstitutional. The majority of GOP senators designating the latest Trump impeachment trial unconstitutional wasn't enough to stop it from moving forward. But its ultimate prospects aren't good. "Lawmakers narrowly killed a Republican effort to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional," says The New York Times. But the 5545 vote "strongly suggested that the Senate would not be able to convict the former president." All Democrats plus at least 17 Republican senators need to vote to convict Trump in order for it to happen.

Indiana lawmakers are trying to make it harder for Libertarians to get on ballots. A new measure (House Bill 1134) from state Rep. Ethan Manning (RDenver) "would require Libertarians to collect signatures of registered voters to run for governor or U.S. Senate. Under current law, Libertarians nominate those offices in a primary convention and are not required to gather signatures required of Republicans and Democrats as part of the primary ballot process," notes TheJournal Gazette.

Manning's bill would still allow Libertarians to nominate governor and U.S. Senate candidates via convention but would then also require the nominee to meet the signature requirement, which is 500 registered voters for each of the state's nine congressional districts."

"Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said a cynical person would see it as a bill to punish Libertarians because they did well in the last gubernatorial election, and some believe they siphon votes from Republicans.

Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis, said the bill adds more requirements on Libertarians without giving them any new powers or advantages."

Apple and Google sued over Telegram posts. "Here's an interesting lawsuit, brought to you by some familiar names," writes Tim Cushing at Techdirt. "And by 'interesting,' I mean 'exceedingly stupid.'"

Apparently, former U.S. ambassador and Coalition for A Safer Web head Marc Ginsberg is suing Apple over content posted to encrypted messaging app Telegram, which is not affiliated with Apple except insofar as the Telegram app is available through the Apple app store. Ginsberg argues that some Telegram posts and chats are bad, so Apple shouldn't even make Telegram available. More from Cushing:

Ginsberg claims the Telegram app violates Apple's developer guidelines and California's hate speech law and should be removed from the app store. Because Apple hasn't removed the app, it has been downloaded and used by people who engage in anti-Semitic speech. (Ginsberg is Jewish.) Because Telegram refuses to remove this content, it somehow leaks into Ginsberg's life through the app storeeven if Ginsberg has never downloaded the app or engaged with its users.

Ginsberg is also suing Google over making Telegram available through the Google Play store.

Those who want to get rid of Section 230 say this would stop social networks and websites from unfairly censoring their users' political comments. In reality, it would give them an incentive to censor far more aggressively. To protect themselves from being sued over content, they would remove anything remotely controversial. Users would be spied on constantly.

Ironically, this would help Facebook, Twitter, Google and other social-media giants while hurting smaller companies and new startups.

View post:
Sedition Cases Against Capitol Rioters 'Will Bear Fruit Very Soon,' Says FBI - Reason

Former Rep. Justin Amash, who repeatedly sparred with President Trump during his time in office, called Thursday for Republicans to join the Libertarian Party.

Mr. Amash represented Michigans 3rd Congressional District from 2011 to 2021. He was a Republican but ended up leaving the party and becoming an independent in 2019 before officially joining the Libertarian Party last year over his opposition to Mr. Trump.

The GOP isnt getting better anytime soon. If youre a Republican whos had enough, join me in the Libertarian Party. Reach out to me. Im happy to answer questions about making the switch. Were readying to make a big impact over the next few years, he said on Twitter.

Mr. Amash voted to impeach Mr. Trump in 2019 over the Ukrainian scandal.

He has toyed with running for the presidential nomination for the Libertarian Party.

Go here to see the original:
Former GOP congressman urges Never Trumpers to join Libertarian Party - Washington Times

Journal-Courier staff, dbauer@myjournalcourier.com

Letter to the editor: There are options to political dissatisfaction

To the editor:

The Non-Aggression Principle is a central philosophy of Libertarianism. It is defined that any aggression initiated by force, threats or coercion to make any forceful interference with either a person or their property is inherently wrong. It does not forbid forceful defense.

There are several arguments around the principles definitions and philosophy, which is encapsulated within each of the different caucuses of the Libertarian Party. Like both major parties, we have many competing ideologies. It can sometimes lead to the frustrations we commonly see in the world of politics and to the gridlock that slows down the machinations of government. We are not a perfect party, but we do have a large tent to welcome all who wish to join.

Like the rioting and burning that took place in several major cities across the country this past summer, the Morgan County Libertarians condemn any and all acts of violence and destruction, especially those that occurred in our nations capital this week. We are against the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. There are real grievances on both sides of the political spectrum that need to be earnestly and honestly addressed in the highest echelons of our government. Both sides have exploited the government to their own benefit and have disregarded and disenfranchised others. Those loopholes and deficiencies in our laws must be stopped and things must be changed. Libertarians wish to see a very different government and set of public policies that listen to all grievances and petitions with equality and fairness. Libertarians are committed to achieving that end peacefully by persuasion, peaceful protest and demonstration, and through winning elections at all levels of government.

It is time for you, dear reader, to decide if you wish to continue the madness of voting against your own self-interests through re-electing Democrats and Republicans or if you are willing to try something more principled.

If you are a Republican that is shocked and angered by your party giving succor to an authoritative, seditious tyrant wishing to overthrow the general tenants of our democracy, inciting a cult-mob to acts of violence to retain power, or are a Democrat that feels that socialism is a failed economic philosophy that will only take more of your money and expand the size of government and debt your grandchildren will owe or are simply a common citizen that is tired by the response from both parties saying more government is the solution to all of the nations ills, there is another way. If you want a party that follows the Constitution and wants to leave you alone to live your life as you see fit as long as you are not hurting anybody else, please reach out to the Morgan County Libertarians or the Illinois Libertarian Party.

Even if you are not convinced, simply ask questions you may be surprised by the answers.

Ben Cox

Jacksonville

Read more here:
Letter to the editor: There are options to political dissatisfaction - Jacksonville Journal-Courier