Category Archives: Libertarianism

FreedomWorks, the influential libertarian/conservative advocacy group that gave Rep. Justin Amash (IMich.) FreedomFighter Awards each of his first eight years in Congress, is reportedly not intending to help the incumbent hold onto his seat as an independent.

"We don't have any plans to get involved in MI-03 at this time, seeing as we're focused on some other key races to help regain the GOP's House majority," FreedomWorks spokesman Peter Vicenzi told Declan Garvey of The Dispatch, which published a long profile of Amash today. "We're going to support some incumbents as well, mainly [House Freedom Caucus] members."

Amash, who co-founded the Freedom Caucus and was widely considered to be the brains of the group from 2015 to 2018, left the 30-member bloc last June, then three weeks later bolted from the Republican Party as a whole. It's that last apostasy, coupled with his outspoken support for impeaching President Donald Trump, that has coincided with an epidemic of cold shoulders from the very organizations that before last summer routinely celebrated Amash's intellectual independence and fiscal/constitutional conservatism.

Amash's single biggest campaign contributor throughout his career, The Club for Growth, with whom he has a lifetime rating of 99 percent and from whom he received Defender of Economic Freedom Awards for each of his first eight years in the House of Representatives, gave what Garvey described as "an indignant 'no'" when asked if the fiscally conservative group would again back the most fiscally conservative member of Congress.

Americans for Prosperity, which joined the Club in helping Amash beat back an establishment-GOP primary challenge in 2014, told The Dispatch that they "have nothing to announce at this time."

The influential DeVos family from Amash's own district, which has been his second-biggest donor over the years and with whom his family has various longstanding relationships, announced last year that its days of officially supporting the hometown libertarian were over, too.

Amash's three-way race in the swingish district of greater Grand Rapids is expected to be among the most competitive in the country. The Cook Political Report last month moved its projection for the November 2020 election from "toss-up" to "lean Republican," citing the loneliness of the pro-impeachment right. Democrats and Republicans are holding contested primaries for the nomination on August 4. Increasing the incumbent's degree of difficulty is the fact that Michigan is one of a handful of states to allow for straight-ticket voting, meaning an entire party's slate can be supported by checking just one box.

Amash likes to counter that he routinely exceeds expectations of pollsters and forecasters, that his district has some truly only-in-MI-3 characteristics (therefore rendering comparative models ineffective), and that, well, he has a pretty good track record of winning elections. His race hasn't really been polled, and we're still waiting to hear on fourth quarter fundraising numbers.

But the abandonment of Amash by limited government advocacy groups illustrates how party-dependent their commitment to principle is. As long as you fly the GOP flag, you'll be eligible to receive a "Top Ten Reasons to Support Justin Amash for U.S. Congress in MI-3." Support the impeachment of a Republican president, or leave your party and caucus behind, well, won't you please sign our thank-you card to Rep. Jim Jordan for fighting "shifty Adam Schiff"?

It's hard out there for an independent in this highly polarized political environment. Almost all of the incentivesfor politicians, advocacy groups, even journalistsencourage actors to pick one team and work within it, regardless of what bizarre ideological and comportmental turns the institution takes.

After the government-growing, economy-tanking, Middle East-wrecking, disaster-mismanaging record of the George W. Bush administration, many conservative individuals and organizations took stock, expressed regret at having looked the other way, and then helped build a new movement rededicated to hardcore fiscal conservatism, foreign policy skepticism, personal freedom over the surveillance state, and constitutionalist trimming of executive power. It's hard to imagineand certainly difficult to find a better conservative-group score fora member of Congress who typifies those values more than Justin Amash.

By making the understandable, pragmatic choice to turn their backs on Amash in a time of need, the very organizations that helped to nurture a new generation of genuinely interesting politicians now threatens to sow the seeds of their own future regret. As ever when it comes to politics, ye shall know them by their fruits.

Originally posted here:
Justin Amash's Biggest Fiscally Conservative National Donors Are Abandoning His Re-election Bid - Reason

Find out how to seemore than a million snow geese as they feastin NorCal's plentiful rice fields. And our Palm Springs-based political reporterbreaks downall you need to know ahead of the Golden State'sMarch 3 primary.

It's Wednesday's news.

But first, a California mom creates a 3-D, AR app to get your littles using the loo. "Let's get this pottystarted" (VIDEO).

I'm Arlene Martnez and I write In California, a daily roundup of news from across USA TODAY Network newsrooms and beyond. Signing up is fast, fun and free.

Vote button on star background(Photo: Marilyn Nieves, Getty Images)

Yes, the state's 5.4 million voters who registered "No Party Preference" can cast a ballot in the presidential primary for the Democratic Party, the America Independent Party and the Libertarian Party. Where they won't be able to weigh in are theRepublican Party, the Green Party and the Peace & Freedom Party. That's because each party sets its own rules and decides whether to hold an "open" or "closed" primary (can you imagine if the Libertarians closed theirs? Anyway).

If you're registered with a political party a Republican or Democrat, for example candidates for president will automatically appear on your ballot. But if you're not one of those voters, you have to request what's called acrossover ballotto vote in a party primary. Now you're wondering what a crossover ballot even is.Political reporter Sam Metz not only answers that but these questions as well:

March 3 is an exciting day whendemocracy goes into action. Between now and then, I and the other 100 or so reporters with the USA TODAY Network are here to answer any of your questions. As important as the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.are those people who represent you locally.

SOURCE AP(Photo: USA TODAY)

The flu's contributed to thedeaths of 70 Californiansthis season;five of them were children.

The pilots who dumped fuel atop small children in Los Angeles yesterday before making an emergency landing didn't have FAA clearance, buteveryone survived so...

In time to nail your New Year's resolution, the E. coli threat has passed andSalinas-grown lettuce is safe to eat again, the CDC said.

Arctic-dwelling snow geese migrate as far as 6,000 miles to the Sacramento Valley every winter to feed.(Photo: Mike Peters, Snow Goose Festival of the Pacific Flyway)

With their wide, majestic wingspan, white bodies and black wingtips, snow geese make for a captivating show. And every year, a million of them travel upwards of 6,000 miles before arriving at California's wetlands for the winter.

It's a migration dating backmillennia. Their arrival sendsbird enthusiastsand conservationists flocking to the Sacramento Valley to catch the boisterous spectacle. And for the past 20 years, there's been Chico's Snow Goose Festival of the Pacific Flyway celebrating the birds' landing.

With festivities only days away, learn more about snow geese and how to get the best kind of show, the kind you can only seein nature.

A truck loaded with cardboard for recycling in San Francisco.(Photo: Elizabeth Weise)

Santa Ana is suing Orange County and the cities ofDana Point, San Clemente and San Juan Capistranoon claims they shuttle homeless people to its shelter and fail to offer services and housingof their own.

California's Tom Steyer, diversity and other losersin Tuesday's Democratic presidentialdebate.

Recycling has plummeted since China stopped taking our things, but San Francisco's managing to keep 80% of its trash out of landfills. It isn't perfect critics say the no-bid contract drives up the price but supporters see it as anexample of badly needed domestic recycling investment.

A former police officer faces charges for allegedly possessing121 guns (two were assault weapons), military-grade flares, riot-control smoke grenadesand an explosive lotion bottle. The Monterey resident isrelated to Leon Panetta, who headed the CIA.

Mountain lions like to go it alone. I feel them, I feel them. So it'srare to see five of them together, like this pack in Sacramento(VIDEO).

The California Route 66 Museum in Victorville features exhibits of historic artifacts and photography that explore the cultural and economic impacts of Route 66.(Photo: David Kafer)

It's hump day, which means you may be dreaming of a getaway with the weekend so very far, yet so very near. Consider theCalifornia Route 66 Museum.It's got oldroad signage, gas pumps,a 50s diner booth, a psychedelically painted 60s-era VW van andthe original Route 66 kiosk, which oncesat onthe Santa Monica Pier.

And while you're there, don't forget to explore downtown Victorville! Or, drive just three more hours to Vegas.

I'll leave you now, dear reader,with a listening recommendation:

The Bay's newscast from Wednesday, The Anonymous Companies That Buy Up Homes. What role are shell companies playing in California's housing crisis? And what can citiesdo to require companies to acquire property out in the open? Worth the 11-minute listen.

In California is a roundup of news from across the USA TODAY Network newsrooms. Also contributing: New York Times, Orange CountyRegister, Reveal, KQED, CBS.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/15/california-knowing-half-battle/4471612002/

Read more here:
In California: Get ready to matter in the presidential primary - USA TODAY

Mormon fundamentalist, reality star, and polygamist Kody Brown is best known for his appearances on TLCs Sister Wives. Since 2010, Kody and his four wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn Brown, have expressed their desire to be out and proud polygamists.

It looks like Kody might also want to get into politics, at least on a local level. Last season, he opened up about his desire to run for office in Arizona on a libertarian platform after the family moved from Las Vegas to Flagstaff. Based on a recent exchange with a 2020 U.S. presidential candidate on Twitter, the Sister Wives star might be making good on that promise soon.

In mid-Jan. 2020, Kody responded to a surprise tweet from Adam Charles Kokesh, a 2020 presidential candidate running with the U.S. Libertarian party. Yo! I just heard you moved to my neighborhood of Northern AZ. Please follow me so I can DM you! Kokesh wrote to Kody.

The Sister Wives star seemed eager to meet up with Kokesh, writing back: Hi Adam, I have been following you for a few months (I think?). Lets have lunch!

Kokesh is a former Marine and Republican who now works as a podcast host, independent journalist, and libertarian politician. The presidential candidate, who lives in Ash Fork, Arizona, is known for his niche political views, including his election platform of complete dissolution of the federal government.

Its no surprise that Kody is hoping to meet with a libertarian presidential candidate one-on-one. The Sister Wives star has frequently referred to himself as liberty-minded and as neither conservative nor liberal. He has also clashed somewhat with his adult daughter, Mariah Brown, who is a self-professed Democrat.

Kody has been outspoken many times about his political views. He has even said in the past that he hopes to run for political office in order to champion the right to practice polygamy legally. In 2017, Kody supported politician Rand Paul, who is frequently beloved by libertarian voters, writing on Twitter, Could we please get our freedom back?!

In another tweet, the Sister Wives star wrote, Collectivism is not freedom. Thus our God/nature given rights belong to all, every individual. Society bands to protect INDIVIDUAL rights.

Kody and his wives have also protested repeatedly with other polygamist families against anti-bigamy laws in Utah and elsewhere, citing their belief in personal freedom and individual rights as their main reasoning for doing so.

This isnt the first time Kody has expressed interest in getting involved in politics, both locally and nationally.

The Browns Supreme Court case, Brown v. Buhman, was ultimately dismissed in 2016 after an initial win in 2013. In the case, first filed in 2011, the Browns argued that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to criminalize polygamy, citing the Supreme Courts ruling on gay marriage as precedent.

True to Kodys beliefs, the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, even submitted documents to argue that the Sister Wives cast was in the right. While the court at first agreed that the Browns had the right to practice polygamy, they ultimately threw out the case because the State of Utah (where the case was filed) almost never actually prosecutes polygamy cases.

Since the case was dismissed, it looks like Kody might be hoping to take legal matters into his own hands.

Continue reading here:
'Sister Wives': Kody Brown Is Going to Hang Out With This 2020 Presidential Candidate - Showbiz Cheat Sheet

In a provocative yet thoughtful manifesto, economist Tyler Cowen, a major figure in libertarian circles, offers a harsh assessment of his ideological confreres:

Having tracked the libertarian "movement" for much of my life, I believe it is now pretty much hollowed out, at least in terms of flow. One branch split off into Ron Paul-ism and less savory alt right directions, and another, more establishment branch remains out there in force but not really commanding new adherents. For one thing, it doesn't seem that old-style libertarianism can solve or even very well address a number of major problems, most significantly climate change. For another, smart people are on the internet, and the internet seems to encourage synthetic and eclectic views, at least among the smart and curious. Unlike the mass culture of the 1970s, it does not tend to breed "capital L Libertarianism." On top of all that, the out-migration from narrowly libertarian views has been severe, most of all from educated women.

As an antidote, Cowen champions what he calls "State Capacity Libertarianism," which holds that a large, growing government does not necessarily come at the expense of fundamental individual rights, pluralism, and the sort of economic growth that leads to continuously improved living standards. Most contemporary libertarians, he avers, believe that big government and freedom are fundamentally incompatible, to which he basically answers, Look upon Denmark and despair: "Denmark should in fact have a smaller government, but it is still one of the freer and more secure places in the world, at least for Danish citizens albeitnot for everybody."

In many ways, Cowen's post condenses his recent book Stubborn Attachments, in which he argues politics should be organized around respect for individual rights and limited government; policies that encourage long-term, sustainable economic growth; and an acknowledgement that some problems (particularly climate change) need to be addressed at the state rather than individual level. You can listen to a podcast I did with him here or read a condensed interview with him here. It's an excellent book that will challenge readers of all ideological persuasions. There's a ton to disagree with in it, but it's a bold, contrarian challenge to conventional libertarian attitudes, especially the idea that growth in government necessarily diminishes living standards.

I don't intend this post as a point-by-point critique of Cowen's manifesto, whose spirit is on-target but whose specifics are fundamentally mistaken. I think he's right that the internet and the broader diffusion of knowledge encourages ideological eclecticism and the creation of something like mass personalization when it comes to ideology. But this doesn't just work against "capital L Libertarianism." It affects all ideological movements, and it helps explain why the divisions within groups all over the political spectrum (including the Democratic and Republican parties) are becoming ever sharper and harsher. Everywhere around us, coalitions are becoming more tenuous and smaller. (This is not a bad thing, by the way, any more than the creation of new Christian sects in 17th-century England was a bad thing.) Nancy Pelosi's sharpest critics aren't from across the aisle but on her own side of it. Such a flowering of niches is itself libertarian.

Cowen is also misguided in his call for increasing the size, scope, and spending of government. "Our governments cannot address climate change, much improve K-12 education, fix traffic congestion," he writes, attributing such outcomes to "failures of state capacity"both in terms of what the state can dictate and in terms of what it can spend. This is rather imprecise. Whatever your beliefs and preferences might be on a given issue, the scale (and cost) of addressing, say, climate change is massive compared to delivering basic education, and with the latter at least, there's no reason to believe that more state control or dollars will create positive outcomes. More fundamentally, Cowen conflates libertarianism with political and partisan identities, affiliations, and outcomes. I think a better way is to define libertarian less as a noun or even a fixed, rigid political philosophy and more as an adjective or "an outlook that privileges things such as autonomy, open-mindedness, pluralism, tolerance, innovation, and voluntary cooperation over forced participation in as many parts of life as possible." I'd argue that the libertarian movement is far more effective and appealing when it is cast in pre-political and certainly pre-partisan terms.

Be all that as it may, I agree that the libertarian movement is stalled in some profound ways. A strong sense of forward momentumwhat Cowen calls flowamong self-described libertarians has definitely gone missing in the past few years, especially when it comes to national politics (despite the strongest showing ever by a Libertarian presidential nominee in 2016). From the 1990s up through a good chunk of the '00s, there was a general sense that libertarian attitudes, ideas, and policies were, if not ascendant, at least gaining mindshare, a reality that both energized libertarians and worried folks on the right and left. In late 2008, during the depths of the financial crisis and a massive growth of the federal government, Matt Welch and I announced the beginning of the "Libertarian Moment." This, we said, was

an early rough draft version of the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick's glimmering "utopia of utopias." Due to exponential advances in technology, broad-based increases in wealth, the ongoing networking of the world via trade and culture, and the decline of both state and private institutions of repression, never before has it been easier for more individuals to chart their own course and steer their lives by the stars as they see the sky.

Our polemic, later expanded into the book The Declaration of Independents, was as much aspirational as descriptive, but it captured a sense that even as Washington was about to embark on a phenomenal growth spurtcontinued and expanded by the Obama administration in all sorts of ways, from the creation of new entitlements to increases in regulation to expansions of surveillancemany aspects of our lives were improving. As conservatives and liberals went dark and apocalyptic in the face of the economic crisis and stalled-out wars and called for ever greater control over how we live and do business, libertarians brought an optimism, openness, and confidence about the future that suggested a different way forward. By the middle of 2014, The New York Times was even asking on the cover of its weekly magazine, "Has the 'Libertarian Moment Finally Arrived?"

That question was loudly answered in the negative as the bizarre 2016 presidential season got underway and Donald Trump appeared on the horizon like Thanos, blocking out the sun and destroying all that lay before him. By early 2016, George Will was looking upon the race between Trump and Hillary Clinton and declaring that we were in fact not in a libertarian moment but an authoritarian one, regardless of which of those monsters ended up in the White House. In front of 2,000 people gathered for the Students for Liberty's annual international conference, Will told Matt and me:

[Donald Trump] believes that government we have today is not big enough and that particularly the concentration of power not just in Washington but Washington power in the executive branch has not gone far enough.Today, 67 percent of the federal budget is transfer payments.The sky is dark with money going back and forth between client groups served by an administrative state that exists to do very little else but regulate the private sector and distribute income. Where's the libertarian moment fit in here?

With the 2020 election season kicking into high gear, apocalypticism on all sides will only become more intense than it already is. Presidential campaigns especially engender the short-term, elections-are-everything partisan thinking that typically gets in the way of selling libertarian ideas, attitudes, and policies.

Cowen is, I think, mostly right that the libertarian movement is not "really commanding new adherents," including among "educated women." He might add ethnic and racial minorities, too, who have never been particularly strongly represented in the libertarian movement. And, increasingly, younger Americans, who are as likely to have a positive view of socialism as they are of capitalism.

Of course, as I write this, I can think of all sorts of ways that libertarian ideas, policies, and organizations actually speak directly to groups not traditionally thought of libertarian (I recently gave $100 to Feminists for Liberty, a group that bills itself as "anti-sexism & anti-statism, pro-markets & pro-choice.") School choice, drug legalization, criminal justice reform, marriage equality, ending occupational licensing, liberalizing immigration, questioning military intervention, defending free expressionso much of what defines libertarian thinking has a natural constituency among audiences that we have yet to engage as successfully as we should. That sort of outreach, along with constant consideration of how libertarian ideas fit into an ever-changing world, is of course what Reason does on a daily basis.

All of us within the broadly defined libertarian movement need to do better. And in that sense at least, Cowen's manifesto is a welcome spur to redoubling efforts.

Here is the original post:
The Libertarian Movement Needs a Kick in the Pants - Reason

9. State Capacity Libertarians are more likely to have positive views of infrastructure, science subsidies, nuclear power (requires state support!), and space programs than are mainstream libertarians or modern Democrats. Modern Democrats often claim to favor those items, and sincerely in my view, but de facto they are very willing to sacrifice them for redistribution, egalitarian and fairness concerns, mood affiliation, and serving traditional Democratic interest groups. For instance, modern Democrats have run New York for some time now, and theyve done a terrible job building and fixing things. Nor are Democrats doing much to boost nuclear power as a partial solution to climate change, if anything the contrary.

10. State Capacity Libertarianism has no problem endorsing higher quality government and governance, whereas traditional libertarianism is more likely to embrace or at least be wishy-washy toward small, corrupt regimes, due to some of the residual liberties they leave behind.

11. State Capacity Libertarianism is not non-interventionist in foreign policy, as it believes in strong alliances with other relatively free nations, when feasible. That said, the usual libertarian problems of intervention because government makes a lot of mistakes bar still should be applied to specific military actions. But the alliances can be hugely beneficial, as illustrated by much of 20th century foreign policy and today much of Asia which still relies on Pax Americana.

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/what-libertarianism-has-become-and-will-become-state-capacity-libertarianism.html

Originally posted here:
What libertarianism has become and will become State Capacity Libertarianism - Hot Air

The Libertarian Party fired shots at former 2016 LP Presidential candidate Austin Petersen on Twitter on Friday, accusing him of abandoning the principles of liberty.

The insults came as a response to Austin posting on Twitter about how he wished President Trump would keep his campaign promise of bringing U.S. troops home from the Middle East. Petersen was making reference to President Trumps decision to deploy more troops to the region after an American led air-strike killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, although U.S. officials say the decision to deploy more troops wasnt a result of the strike, according to NBC News.

I know its not PC to admit, but I dont give a shit about the Middle East or what happens there and wish the president would keep his promise and bring the troops home, Petersen said on Twitter late Thursday night.

The LP National Twitter account decided to take this opportunity to troll Petersen in the thread due to his decision to leave the Libertarian Party before running for Senate in his home state of Missouri in 2018.

Well respectfully have to disagree with the gentleman that left us for electability, yet placed a distant third in his primary, losing to a man who takes conservative populism to radical new heights. Should you ever wish to work towards genuine liberty again, well be around, the LP tweeted early Friday morning.

The LP also accused Petersen of running fringe outsider campaigns in a party that has gone so far populist that liberty is no longer on the radar.

As a supporter of Austins since his 2016 Presidential campaign, I can tell you that the LPs attempt to shame Austin for his decision to leave the party (which he made after calling over 4,000 of his supporters) is nothing more than an example of the same disgusting tribalism that we find in both major political parties.

I have begun to believe that the Libertarian Party as a whole couldnt care less about truly trying to advance the principles of individual liberty and limited government. Instead, they want to bicker about government overreach and the problems big government creates while shaming other liberty-minded folks both inside and outside of the LP because he or she doesnt fall in line with every single plank of the party platform.

I say this as someone who made the decision to register as a big L Libertarian in November of 2018 instead of remaining a small l libertarian unaffiliated with any political party as I had been for the majority of my adult life. I must say this constant childish behavior and attempted browbeating of anyone who decides to leave the LP while still remaining true to the principles of liberty has me heavily considering becoming a small l libertarian once again. As Austin pointed out on Twitter, the party seems to be just as corrupt as the two major parties without any of the recognition.

I cant stand by and watch a party run by clowns attempt to tarnish the good name of a man who does far more to advocate for liberty on a daily basis than the Libertarian Party as a whole has done for years. I have no malice in my heart toward the LP or any of its members, but I will not allow anyone to try to jab at a man whom I personally believe is the best person to come out of the Libertarian Party since Former Congressman Ron Paul (who was not elected to serve until he ran as a Republican).

Instead of bickering about government waste and corruption, Austin works every weekday to use his platform as a commentator on the KWOS Morning Show in Jefferson City Missouri, to make the case for limited government to the people of his state and around the world. That doesnt count all the debates and speaking engagements he has participated in around the country and the fine people he has trained and given platforms by founding The Libertarian Republic.

On a personal note, Austin has mentored and trained me, a man born with cerebral palsy and given me a pathway to work to achieve my lifes dream of becoming a successful member of the media so that I can work and get out of the clutches of the Welfare State instead of remaining tangled in its webs due to circumstances I had no control over. What in the name of Patrick Henry could be more libertarian than that?

Whoever is in charge of the National LPs Twitter account and public relations shouldnt throw rocks when they live in a glass house. The LP seems to chase away and shame every single candidate/ former candidate who has a gift for making the libertarian message appealing to the average voter. Instead, they favor folks like Gary What is Aleppo Johnson and his gun-grabbing buddy Bill Weld, naked guys dancing on stage at conventions, and shaming other members of their party who believe abortion kills an innocent life.

The Libertarian Party as a whole will never be taken seriously by the rest of the nation until its members practice a bit of self-governance and civility to others both inside and outside of the LP.

A party that would shame one of its former members simply for listening to his supporters and the voters of his state while still walking the path of freedom is not capable of governance, and has no room to speak about corruption within the GOP and Democratic Parties when it is guilty of the same corruption and tribalism.

Austin is one of the boldest voices we have in the modern liberty movement. I will gladly stand arm in arm with him any day of the week. I am grateful to call him my boss and mentor, but even more so, one of my greatest friends.

I want to encourage all friends of liberty, regardless of the party to which you belong, to stop the fighting amongst ourselves. A house divided cannot stand, and if we are to defend the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, we must stand together or all our efforts will have been in vain.

Read more from the original source:
The Libertarian Party's Attack on Austin Petersen Shows Why They Lose - The Libertarian Republic

BY SONYA HERRERADaily Post Staff Writer

A local Libertarian said in a ballot argument for the March election that the Foothill-De Anza Community College District is trying to trick Chinese residents into voting for new taxes by flashing around the number 8.

The number 8 has long been associated with good fortune in Chinese culture. Often companies market products using the number. Thats why certain real estate listings include several 8s, and why other businesses try to get as many 8s in their phone numbers as possible.

Mark Hinkle of Morgan Hill, who regularly writes ballot arguments against tax measures, claims that the college district is using the number 8 to manipulate Chinese voters.

The college district is asking voters on March 3 to approve Measure G, a $898 million bond sale, and Measure H, a $48 parcel tax.

Hinkles co-signer on the ballot argument, Mountain View attorney Gary Wesley, said that he attended a college district board meeting in 2006 when they were discussing a $490.8 million bond measure. He recalled that a board member asked why there was a .8 at the end of the amount. A district employee answered that 8 was considered lucky in Chinese culture, Wesley said.

The 1999 bond measure had been $248 million. This one is $898 million, Wesley said. You will find no other credible explanation for the $898 (million) total proposed for March 3.

District board members did not respond to requests for comment.

Hinkle, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, typically writes ballot arguments against tax increases in every election. The arguments for and against a measure are printed in the Voter Guide thats mailed to residents.

Heres a look at some of the arguments voters will see in the guide prior to the March election.

For Measure G, the college district would borrow $898 million, which would be repaid with a property tax of $160 per $1 million of assessed property value. The amount district property owners would have to repay is estimated at $1.56 billion, which includes principal and interest. The taxes to repay the bonds would continue through 2053-54, according to the districts website. The district says the sale of the bonds would pay for upgrading and repairing classrooms and labs, improving access to buildings for students with disabilities, and repairing plumbing and electrical systems.

Measure H is a parcel tax for the district that would be in place for five years. The tax would cost $48 per year per parcel and would pay for faculty salaries and new programs to help students who are homeless or hungry.

District trustee Patrick Ahrens wrote the arguments for Measure G and H and the rebuttals to the arguments against the measures.

These documents were signed by district trustee Pearl Cheng; student trustees Tiffany Nguyen and Genevieve Kolar; Dudley Andersen, former chair of the districts past bond oversight committee; Foothill student Luis Herrera; former De Anza instructor Harry Price; Dick Henning, founder of Foothill Colleges Celebrity Forum; De Anza instructor Bill Wilson; and resident George Tyson.

Ahrens wrote that Measure G would ensure that the colleges will continue their current classes, and that the colleges have been excellent stewards of taxpayers money. Ahrens wrote that Measure H money cannot be used for administrator salaries or pensions.

Hinkle wrote the arguments against Measures G and H and the rebuttals to the arguments in favor of the measures. He wrote that Measure G is the third bond measure from the district in 20 years, and that if it passes, your grandchildren will still be paying for the debt incurred today.

Hinkle wrote that Measure G would permit the district to sell the bonds in later years, possibly at much higher interest rates, which would more than double what taxpayers would have to repay. Hinkle said that while enrollment at the districts two colleges has dropped, the number of retiring employees has risen. Hinkle said that the pension liabilities and other benefits owed to these district retirees will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and said that as written, Measure H allows the district to spend the money however it wants.

Measure T is a bond measure for Mountain View Whisman School District. The district would borrow $259 million, which would be repaid through a $300 tax per $1 million of assessed property value. The estimated total repayment amount is about $538 million, and the estimated revenue from the tax is $18.6 million each year. The district says the sale of the bonds would pay for repairing, upgrading and building new facilities and classrooms.

The argument in favor of Measure T and the rebuttal to the argument against Measure T were written by Cleave Frink, a member of the districts bond oversight committee for Measure G, which was passed in 2012. The argument in favor was signed by Realtor Aileen La Bouff; teacher Margaret Poor; district trustee Tamara Wilson; resident William Lambert; financial planner Niki Theil; Realtor Nancy Stuhr; Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District trustee Fiona Walter; retired fire chief Dale Kuersten; and teacher Gail Lee.

Frink wrote that Measure T would ensure that schools in the district would have modern classrooms, science labs and computer systems, and provide housing for teachers and district employees. Frink pointed out that Hinkle, the lone opponent to Measure T, doesnt live in Mountain View.

The argument against Measure T and the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure T were written by Hinkle, who said the bond is a blank check, and that the interest rate could be much higher and result in a higher repayment amount.

Measure D would change the Mountain View rent control law voters passed in 2016. The measure would, among other things, eliminate the current limit on rent increases, which is the consumer price index, and replace it with a 4% ceiling.

The argument for Measure D and the rebuttal to the argument against Measure D were written by multiple authors, including Frink and Fiona Walter; city council members John McAlister, Margaret Abe-Koga and Chris Clark; Environmental Planning Commissioner William Cranston; former Mountain View Whisman School board member Christopher Chiang; Greg Cooper, president of Mountain View Professional Firefighters Local 1965; Mountain View Whisman School District trustee Jose Gutierrez Jr.; and renter LJ Gunson III.

In the ballot argument, they said that Measure D allows landlords to fix up older apartments rather than tear them down. The group wrote that Measure D lowers rent increases from 5% to 4% per year, and that those increases arent automatic. They said courts have ruled that the citys current law doesnt cover mobile homes, and that Measure D allows city council to enact mobile home renter protections next year.

The argument against Measure D and the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure D were also written by multiple authors, including Sally Lieber, former mayor and state Assemblywoman; Tamara Wilson, Mountain View Whisman School District trustee; resident Alex Nunez; Trey Bornmann, president of Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance; Anthony Chang, member of Mountain View Homeowners Against Displacement; and former mayor Pat Showalter.

They wrote that Measure D would result in higher rents and more renters being displaced from their homes.

The group said that Measure D does not set new safety rules, and that the measure allows landlords to raise the rent up to 10% for non-safety property upgrades. They added that city council is only studying protections for mobile home renters next year, and that this study session does not guarantee protections for mobile home renters.

Go here to read the rest:
Libertarian says college district is using the number 8 to influence Chinese voters - The Daily Post

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wants to restore civics in public schools. Worried that students are graduating ignorant of how Americas system of government works, he announced that hes instructing Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran to have all seniors take the test administered to immigrants applying for citizenship.

While I agree on the importance of political understanding, I have reservations about the governors attachment to civics. With education so imbued with progressive ideology, and even the Founding Fathers dismissed as intractable racists, whats to keep civics classes from becoming just another means to run down the country?

Nevertheless, its important for young people to understand how our system works. A good start would be recognizing that there are four pillars on which our republic is based:

First is the right to life. Human life must be inviolable from conception to natural death. If it isnt, the state determines when life is of value and when it isnt. That means government officials can decide whether we live or die. They can declare who is a person. In essence, the state can set the terms of reality. And when that happens, all other rights are forfeit.

The second pillar is a commitment to the common good. Theres a strong strain of libertarianism in American society. The idea that I have the right to do whatever I wish, as long as it doesnt impinge on the rights of others is attractive and superficially plausible, because it seems to reflect the basic assumptions of American freedom.

Certainly, we strive to maintain a high degree of individual liberty, but we know that the very fact that everyone has their own rights places limits on individualism. This is what justifies imposing such restraints on private behavior as speed limits. Additionally, there are times when we must act collectively to meet a common need or confront a common danger. That can require great personal sacrifice, as in the case of the military draft. But common good supersedes individual will.

The third pillar is subsidiarity. This is the understanding that different levels of authority are responsible for different functions, and that needs are best met at the lowest level possible. Its what undergirds our federal structure. We have local authorities (cities, counties, school districts, etc.), we have state governments and we have a national government.

Under the principle of subsidiarity, human needs are best addressed at the level closest to the individual, beginning with the family. In point of fact, most needs can be met at the family level, as they were in the past. Unfortunately, the movement to increase governmental size and power has undermined the autonomy of families to such an extent that we now tend to look first to government to solve our problems.

The fourth pillar is solidarity. This implies pride in our countrys history and in the Judeo-Christian moral heritage on which the nation is based. It also requires a sense of unity among those who share our commitment to Americas principles and the U.S. Constitution.

Our history, our principles, our Constitution, even the concept of morality itself, are under attack. Hence, my reservations about Mr. DeSantis hopes for civics education. I think we would do better to emphasize revitalization of the nations churches.

Weve seen the influence of faith on politics before. In the 18th century, America experienced the Great Awakening. This was a grassroots religious revival that swept the colonies. Not only did it bring people to faith, it motivated them to demand independence.

The Great Awakening emphasized the dignity of the human person. It stressed that the Bible says man is made in Gods image and likeness. It is God, not government, who sets the parameters by which people should be treated. We are saved, by faith, not by adherence to ideas considered politically correct at a particular moment in time.

Many churches have been tainted by compromise with the values of the world. Its no mystery that people especially young people abandon organized religion, when what they hear from the pulpit is less inspiring than what they can get from the Hallmark Channel.

But there is no more compelling message than the message of the Gospel. And the network of churches and religious institutions built so arduously over centuries still exists (if somewhat reduced) to transmit that message, if only we can bring it back on track.

We need God more than ever right now. We must not be dissuaded by the popular, though wrong, assumption about Americas separation of church and state that because we have no established church, the public square must be cleansed of all religious ideas.

Act on your faith. Call upon religious leaders to speak the truth forcefully. Show your faith to your representatives by insisting on legislation that reflects traditional values. Strengthen the four pillars.

Save the nation.

Michael P. Orsi, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, currently serves as parochial vicar at St. Agnes Parish in Naples, Florida. He is host of Action for Life TV.

Read more here:
Recognizing the four pillars of the republic in public schools - Washington Times

This years Truthdig Originals cover a wide range of topics, from to subjugation by corporations and creative ideas for addressing climate change to elections and uprisings all over the world. Click on the title to read the full story.

The Private Governments That Subjugate U.S. WorkersBy CHRIS HEDGES

Corporate dictatorships, under the ruling ideology of neoliberalism and libertarianism, have stripped away the rights of employees.

Governments Beware: People Are Rising Up All Over the WorldBy SONALI KOLHATKAR

When people have had enough, they meet force with resistance and resilience.

We Are Living in the Wreckage of the War on TerrorBy MAJ. DANNY SJURSEN

Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan rage on with no end in sight. Our delusion was believing they were ever rational, winnable or meaningful.

The Cheapest Way to Save the Planet Grows Like a WeedBy ELLEN BROWN

Now that growing industrial hemp is legal nationwide, the miracle crop could solve many of our environmental, health and socioeconomic troubles in one fell swoop.

Trump May Be a White Nationalist, but American Racism Is BipartisanBy PAUL STREET

Despite its rhetoric and appearance of diversity, the Democratic Party is deeply complicit in the nations structural and institutional racism.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Refuses to Be Gaslit by The New York TimesBy KASIA ANDERSON

The congresswoman makes it clear that she doesnt agree with the papers take on her career moves.

Argentina Defies the Americas Crisis of DemocracyBy JACOB SUGARMAN

As regional powers backslide and Donald Trump looms, one nation offers a popular, progressive alternative. A dispatch from Buenos Aires.

I Know What Its Like to Be Told to Go Back to My Own CountryBy NATASHA HAKIMI ZAPATA

As the daughter of Iranian and Mexican immigrants, the presidents racist attacks on four congresswomen of color have struck me to my core.

The Supreme Court May Be Lost for a GenerationBy BILL BLUM

John Robert is the newest swing vote, but hes still a conservative. And if Trump is reelected, the GOP will likely get a sixth justice.

Donald Trumps Anti-Semitism Grows Ever BolderByILANA NOVICK

He portrays his audience at the Israeli American Councils National Summit as money-hungry villains, calling them not nice people at all.

The Real Russian Menace Is Just Hypercapitalism

By JACOB BACHARACH

A recent Washington Post feature lays bare the prejudices of our political press and its denial about how American society actually works.

The Left Is Finally Winning the War of IdeasBy LEE CAMP

Despite the establishments best efforts, progressive issues are dominating the conversationjust look at the Democratic primaries.

Presidential Candidates Refuse to Discuss the Countrys Worst CrisisBy BILL BOYARSKY

Americas homelessness problem is in plain view around the nation but conspicuously absent on the campaign trail.

Fred Hampton Lives On, 50 Years After His AssassinationBy TANA GANEVA

The Black Panther and civil rights leader pledged to fight racism with solidarity. The struggle against capitalism he championed lives on.

Who Would FDR Endorse?By CONOR LYNCH

The 32nd president understood how to leverage the popular will. Progressive candidates would be wise to embrace brand of his politics.

Lesbians Are a Target of Male Violence the World OverBy JULIE BINDELIn many countries, they have won legislative equality. But the grim reality is that they still have reason to fear for their safety.

Britains Choice Is Socialism or BarbarismBy ALAN MINSKY

In the Dec. 12 general election, the U.K. had to decide between a humane future or an ethnonationalist lurch toward the right.

Google Secretly Harvests the Health Data of MillionsBy JULIANNE TVETEN

A recent Wall Street Journal expos arouses a familiar sense of dread about Silicon Valley companies and privacy.

NATO Is as Good as DeadBy SCOTT RITTER

The 70-year-old alliance has been fraying since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Donald Trumps presidency may finish it off altogether.

Los Angeles Countys District Attorney Must Go, and Heres WhyBy MELINA ABDULLAH and RASHAD ROBINSON

Jackie Lacey, who oversees the largest prosecutorial office in the nation, has a pattern of neglecting black, brown and poor Angelenos.

Read the original here:
The Best Truthdig Originals of 2019 - Truthdig

Here is news you probably cant use: a new Texas Law Review analysis by University of Chicago law professor William Baude concludesthat Justice Hugo Black, who served on the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971, was unconstitutionally appointed.

The relevant text is the Constitutions Article I, Section 6, which says No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.

At the time of his appointment Black was serving as a senator from Alabamaas part of a Congress that had enacted new retirement benefits for Justices, and while his backers argued that the clause did not apply to bar his nomination, Baude concludes that it probably did. One litigant before the high court challenged Blacks right to serve, but the Court chose to sidestep the merits of that claim by ruling against its standing, and the controversydied.

All of this might seem purely academic. At this remove there would be no way to unscramble the legal omelet as to Blacks jurisprudential contributions, even were there a will. (Despite an unpromising start, the Alabaman eventually showed a libertarian streak on many Bill of Rights issues.)

But the issue is not quite so remote as that, because more than a few contemporary commentators have flirted in some cases more than flirted with claims that the makeup of the present Supreme Court is illegitimate.

After the Senate leadership refused to hold hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, the editorial board of the New York Times repeatedly declared the seat of the late Justice Scalia to have been stolen, and then-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said of eventual nominee Neil Gorsuch that hes not there properly.

The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy brought renewed attack, with former Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned and other high-profile figures taking a similar line.

Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky raised the ante with this remarkable assertion in The American Prospect: each of the five conservative justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh or someone like him (emphasis added) came on to the Court in a manner that lacks legitimacy. Perhaps at some point it will lead to open defiance of the Court.

Other commentators were happy to take up the exciting theme that future Court opinions written by, or decided by the votes of, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and perhaps other Justices might meet with open defiance or resistance from a future Democratic president, from state officials, or from people marching in the streets.

What can the Supreme Court do? Send its tiny police force to storm the White House? wrote Mark Joseph Stern at Slate. Libertarian-minded law professor Ilya Somin, who does not welcome the efforts to de-legitimize the Court or promote defiance of its rulings, nonetheless found them worth taking seriously enough to analyze at length last year.

Baudes research may provide a bit of reassurance in this respect. The challenge to the legitimacy of Blacks seat fizzled in part because it gained little headway with the public, but much more because the Courts other Justices welcomed Black aboard.

Most of the scenarios in which triumphant Democrats in 2021 or 2022 defy Supreme Court rulings are difficult to reconcile with the reality that the Courts liberal Justices have, to all appearances, been entirely content to regard Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as legitimate colleagues, and would, themselves, neither counsel nor welcome defiance of Court rulings. As I wrote last year, "the federal courts are not as polarized and tribal as much of the higher political class and punditry at nomination time."

Baude puts it this way at the conclusion of his article: the real source of constitutional settlement in our system is not always judicial decision, but sometimes sheer practice.

View post:
Disputed Appointments and the Supreme Court's Legitimacy, in 1937 and Today - Cato Institute