Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

New Clauses in the Policing Bill Expose Johnson’s Faux Libertarianism Byline Times – Byline Times

Johnson is sold to voters as a libertarian full of bonhomie but his Government is suppressing freedom of speech and movement

Peppa Pig World, we learned from Prime Minister Boris Johnson in his speech to the CBI, is a place with disciplined schools, safe streets, virtually no crime. Everything and everyone conforms to the rules. I loved it, Johnson told his audience. It is very much my kind of place.

Johnson has a reputation for being a great libertarian leader. The Coronavirus lockdowns, we were told, were an affront to his liberal tendencies. Hes the enemy of red tape, the ruiner of regulations. And yet, his fantasy of Peppa Pig World tells a different story. Despite the narrative we are fed, Johnson falls far short of his libertarian self-image.

Lockdowns aside, which were necessitated for public health more than political expediency, one of Johnsons first acts as Mayor of London was to ban alcohol on public transport. A policy welcomed by some, but not indicative of a free-wheeling approach to freedoms. As Prime Minister, he wasted no time in unlawfully shutting down Parliament.

How can a libertarian proponent of freedom of speech close down the space dedicated to democratic debate?

Central to Johnsons authoritarian tendency is his Governments new Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill. Last week, the Home Secretary Priti Patel introduced new amendments to the Bill that strengthened police powers to shut down and even criminalise protests.

The amendments include criminalising locking on, with specific emphasis on people locking themselves to transport infrastructure. The move appears to be a response to Insulate Britain protests, and protests against deportation flights, both of which involve people attaching themselves to transport, railways or roads. The police will enjoy new powers to stop anyone they reasonably believe may lock on to, or obstruct, major transport works.

Locking on has been a vital part of peaceful and nonviolent protests for centuries, from suffragettes chaining themselves to Parliaments gates to Greenham Common women attaching themselves to the famed military bases fence.

The vague wording of the proposed law means it could feasibly be applied to people linking arms and creating a human chain, even holding hands, as well as the more obvious acts of attaching oneself to a physical object. In doing so, it undermines a long history of nonviolent resistance where protesters put their own bodies on the frontline of the cause they believe in.

Such vagaries are a problem throughout the Bill, which allows the police to stop a protest if it creates too much noise and disruption, or causes someone serious annoyance and serious inconvenience. The problem is, one persons inconvenience is another persons no-bother. The lack of specificity when giving the State wide-ranging powers to prevent peoples freedom of speech, assembly and movement is deeply troubling.

The new clauses in the Bill dont stop there. Police will be given new powers to stop and search people at protests to avoid serious disruption, or if they believe a protester is carrying a prohibited object such as those used to lock on to infrastructure. Refusing could lead to a 51-week jail term.

Then theres the use of the Serious Disruption Prevention Order or SDPO. This order can be imposed on anyone convicted of a protest-related offence which, as the above demonstrates, could now include linking arms while chanting and marching through the local city centre.

According to the Bill, an SPDO can be applied to someone whose activities are likely to result in serious disruption. This means a person can be prevented from even getting to a protest, so long as theres enough suspicion they may well be disruptive should they ever get there.

The SPDO severely restricts peoples freedom of movement. Those who have an order imposed upon them can be forced to report to the authorities whenever the courts demand it, as often as they demand it. They can be prevented from going to certain places, socialising with certain people even blocked from using the internet to encourage people to carry out activities related to a protest. Something as simple as tweeting about a protest could be treated as a violation of the order, which lasts for two years.

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and support quality, investigative reporting.

The assault on the right to non-violence and peaceful protest exposes a hypocrisy in the Conservative Party.

Back in 2018, there was an attempt by Labour to introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics designed to protect women from harassment while accessing healthcare. Then Home Secretary Sajid Javid called the measure disproportionate. More recently, Sir Desmond Swayne said they would be a curb on freedom of assembly and Congleton MP Fiona Bruce accused the zones of threatening hard won freedoms of speech, assembly and democracy.

All but one of the Conservative MPs who voted against a Ten-Minute Bill in 2020 to introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics voted in favour of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Bruce did, however, express concerns about the Governments plans, not least because they would curtail the ability of people to protest outside abortion clinics.

Its not the only example where the Conservative Partys commitment to freedom of speech seems to privilege anti-rights activism over other types of speech or protest. The Department of Educations white paper on freedom of speech in universities quoted research by ADF International an organisation that claims to fight for freedoms while seeking to deny women freedom of choice when it comes to healthcare, and LGBTIQ people freedom to marry.

Then there was the news this week that individuals who criticised the current Government are not welcome in Whitehall a move in direct opposition to the white paper on freedom of speech in universities.

Ultimately, the current Conservative Government appears more interested in the freedoms of the few than the many. This is a Government in favour of the freedom to rip up red tape and wreak havoc on regulations, let alone the freedom to circumvent due process in order to deliver crony contracts. But when it comes to the freedom of the public to protest these same Government actions, it becomes clear how one-sided its commitment to liberty is.

The Prime Minister Boris Johnson has built his reputation on a liberatarian pose fuelling a culture war where his Government rails against cancel culture and accuses the left of being snowflakes who are intent on shutting down any speech or statue they dont like.

The truth is that Johnson is an authoritarian in libertarian clothing. He may claim his passion for freedom of speech when it allows him to attack wokeness. But as the head of a Government that wants to clampdown on hard-earned freedoms to protest, the narrative of Johnson as an instinctive liberal is as fictional as an episode of Peppa Pig.

Byline Times is funded by its subscribers. Receive our monthly print edition and help to support fearless, independent journalism.

New to Byline Times? Find out more about us

A new type of newspaper independent, fearless, outside the system. Fund a better media.

Dont miss a story

Our leading investigations include Brexit, Empire & the culture war, Russian interference, Coronavirus, cronyism and far right radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

Visit link:
New Clauses in the Policing Bill Expose Johnson's Faux Libertarianism Byline Times - Byline Times

The White Mountain Boys – Washington Monthly

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Outside agitators: Hard-core libertarians from across the country, like Mike Parag of Delaware, converge at the annual Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancester, New Hampshire.

One muggy June day in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Bill Marsh, a Republican from the picturesque lake town of Wolfeboro, rose to buck his party. The chamber, newly under Republican control thanks to an alliance between conservatives and libertarian activists, was considering an amendment that would ban mandatory vaccinations amid a global pandemicall mandatory vaccinations, covering diseases from COVID-19 to mumps to hepatitis. Marsh, a retired ophthalmologist who has pushed fellow Republicans to take pandemic precautions more seriously, framed his objection as pro-business. He asked, Why would we interfere with private businesses right to protect themselves, their employees, and their patrons?

The amendments sponsor was Terry Roy, a veteran, devout Christian, and self-described constitutional conservative. He spoke next in defense of the measure, launching into a rambling diatribe that referenced child labor, slavery in the American South, Chinese bats, and the dangers of fluoridated tap water. Does my body, my choice only apply to abortion? he said, according to a House transcript. What about new advances in science? What if we determine someones characteristics can be genetically altered in utero? Would we allow mandated gene therapy? After all, propensity for carrying certain diseases costs billions in health care. What about vaccines for the flu? Will employers mandate those next?

Roys amendment narrowly failed, 193182.

Retribution for the speech was swift and decisiveMarshs speech, that is. Within days, Marsh resigned from his committee, Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs, after party leadership informed him that he would be removed as vice chairman. Later that summer, Roy was appointed vice chairman of the influential Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, replacing another wayward conservative who had disobeyed the partys radicalnew leadership.

A key factor in the extremism, and the extraordinary conservative successes, of this New Hampshire legislature is a group of libertarian activists known as the Free State Project. Founded in 2001 in hopes of establishing a government-free utopia, the Free State Project encourages liberty-minded people to move to New Hampshire to help push its politics even further toward low taxes and minimal state intervention. As of 2021, there are more than 5,000 Free Staters in New Hampshire. Despite their small numbers, they have built a well-funded and organized political apparatus that has elected roughly 45 Republicans to the New Hampshire House of Representatives. The libertarians vote as a bloc that, with a slim majority, the party cant do without.

With Free Staters at their back, Republicans this year have cut taxes in the already income-tax-less state, banned critical race theory and late-term abortions, and launched whats likely the most sweeping education voucher program in the nation. Under House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, a Free State mover, anti-authority libertarians have joined with anti-elite populists to shoot down anything that smacks of expertise or specialized knowledge. Recently, a joint House-Senate committee tabled its acceptance of $6.3 million in federal funds for addiction counseling in the opioid-ravaged state, with members saying they needed to see proof that counseling even works.

Over the past two decades, Free Staters have walked a long path from obscurity and ridicule to undeniable power. And as popular Republican Governor Chris Sununu eyes a 2022 U.S. Senate run, he may remember that a Free Stater, Aaron Day, is often credited with spoiling the 2016 Senate race for Republican incumbent Kelly Ayotte. A year from now, the potentially vulnerable Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan may try to tie him to the libertarian extremism he has refused to reject, observers say. And if Sununu wins, hell enter the U.S. Capitol with a group of constituents he cant afford to offend.

The founder of the Free State Project, Jason Sorens, is a mild-mannered college professor with a mop of brown hair, a boyish smile, and a knack for making even the most outlandish ideas sound like simple arithmetic. During the 2000 elections, Sorens, then a graduate student at Yale, watched with dismay as the Libertarian Party failed to earn more than 1 percent of the national presidential vote. If disaffection with the major parties wasnt enough to swing elections, what was? Despair turned to anger over the course of the long New Haven winter, and then to determination. One day, Sorens sat down at his computer, queued up some heavy metal, and started a manifesto.

Libertarian activists need to face a somber reality, he wrote: nothings working. There are too few libertarians, spread too thinly across the United States, to make a difference through partisan politics, he argued. The only way to break free from oppressive government is to move together to one state, take over its political system, and use threats of secession to force the federal government to leave its residents alone. Uprooting ones life would be inconvenient, yes. But, he wrote, our forefathers bled and diedbecause of the Stamp Tax! The Free State Project requires nothing of that kind, and the stakes are so much higher. How much is liberty worth to you?

In July 2001, Sorens sent the 2,000-word broadside, titled Announcement: The Free State Project, to an obscure libertarian publicationL. Neil Smiths The Libertarian Enterpriseexpecting little response. Then the emails started coming. And coming. People from all over the country wanted to sign up.

For its first few years, the Free State Project existed just as an idea, an internet forum where liberty-minded folk could fantasize about freedom from government overreach during the height of the war on terror. Far-flung libertarians signed a pledge to move together to one place and change its politics, often with the assumption that it would never actually happen. But in 2003, the movement took a significant step toward reality. In a nationwide vote, members chose their Free State. Would it be Texas, independent and suspicious of authority, but perhaps too populous for a small group of activists to influence? Wyoming, sparsely populated, but geographically expansive enough to make coordination difficult? In the end, it was New Hampshire. Population 1.2 million, with no income tax, the land of Live Free or Die was small enough, and libertarian enough, for a little band of determined freedom fighters to swing even further toward liberty.

The revolution had begun. It lookedwell, a bit clownish. The pledge to move to New Hampshire did not technically take effect until 20,000 people, the number Sorens calculated would sway state politics, had signed. Until then, it was the most zealous, with the fewest connections to society, who chose to make the move. In 2004, as chronicled by the journalist Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling in his book A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (and Some Bears), New Hampshire got an early look at its colonizers-cum-liberators in the form of a grizzled, gun-toting posse of men who settled in the woods of Grafton, a town of some 1,100 with low taxes and no zoning regulations. Calling themselves the Free Town Project, the early movers took aim at local government, savaging the budget and constraining the town librarians bathroom breaks to a portable toilet. Bears, lured by the trash left outside the freedom fighters woodland shanties, made increasingly bold incursions into human settlements, which the Free Towners and another, separate commune of anarchists drove back with firecrackers, pistols, and nail-studded booby traps. (And, in one case, a llama named Hurricane.) Human society, meanwhile, nearly broke down. At annual town meetings, the Free Towners demanded that Grafton eliminate its police department and secede from the United Nations, which, they feared, might one day levy taxes or even invade. At one of these meetings, which regularly ran past eight hours, Free Towners reduced the moderator to tears.

Antics like these soon expanded beyond Grafton, dominating headlines about the Free State Project for its first decade. In Keene, New Hampshire, a group of Robin-Hooders declared war on the citys parking officers starting in 2009, following them with video cameras and popping quarters into meters to foil local governments ticket-hungry schemes. Every summer in the White Mountains, Free Staters gathered for the libertarian version of Burning Man: PorcFest, a cryptocurrency and substance-fueled celebration with few rules, many assault rifles, and a giant wooden porcupine that the Free Staters (known as prickly, independent Porcs) set ablaze at the festivals end.

It wasnt until 2016 that the Free State Project reached 20,000 signers, the magic number that triggered the move to New Hampshire. After a triumphant press conference in Manchester, the states largest city, Jason Sorens and other Free State VIPs retired to an after-party at a local speakeasy bar. (The password: TRIGGERED.) Its happening! Sorens said giddily, imitating the popular meme of an arm-waving, celebrating Ron Paul. But Sorens, by this time the respectable face of the movement, with scholarly publications and an appointment at Dartmouth, had doubts, too. He no longer believed in secession, and he feared that the extremists in Grafton had cast a bearded, AK-47-wielding shadow on his brainchild. If all government should be eliminated, he mused, should we just let the roads fall apart? A sheepish grin stole across his face. I dont knowmaybe that makes me a bad libertarian.

Sorens wasnt alone. For years, mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike viewed the Free Staters with suspicion. That included former Speaker Shawn Jasper, who, as recently as 2017, warned fellow Republicans that they must distance themselves from the Free State Project. Sununu, however, has understood the importance of courting the liberty faction since his first run for governor, in 2016. The Free Staters preferred candidate, Frank Edelblut, came within 1,000 votes of defeating him in the Republican primary. After winning the general election, Sununu offered Edelblut, a financier and homeschooler with no public school experience, control of the state department of education. It was a preview for a danceneutralizing a rival, while recruiting from his basethat Sununu would do for years to come.

All the while, the Free State Projects numbers and influence have been growing. Five years ago, the group claimed 2,000 movers and 17 legislators. Though only about 3,000 more people have arrived since then, far from the hoped-for 18,000, the movements legislative numbers have nearly tripled in that timea function of outside investment and the peculiar structure of the New Hampshire legislature.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 total members, an enormous number of citizen legislators who receive nominal salaries and often run with little to no opposition. In recent years, political organizations such as the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity appear to have recognized that these seats offer good value for their money. In the 2020 cycle alone, the groups New Hampshire chapter spent nearly $847,000 on statehouse races and other statewide elections, often in support of Free State candidates, according to state filings. Meanwhile, as the Republican Party nationally has taken a populist, anti-elite turn, libertarians and conservatives are ever more unitedin what theyre against.

Jason Osborne moved to New Hampshire from Defiance, Ohio, in October 2010. He had signed the Free State pledge years earlier, during graduate school, and mostly forgotten about it. But as he looked for a place to raise his four-year-old daughter, he was drawn by the prospect of a like-minded community in New Hampshire. A few months before his move, he took the stage at PorcFest 2010 to belt a karaoke rendition of Minority, by the left-leaning punk band Green Day. He sang, with equal doses of irony and prophecy,

I want to be the minority

I dont need your authority

Down with the moral majority

Cause I want to be the minority.

Once in New Hampshire, Osborne, who manages his familys student debt collection firm, Credit Adjustments, Inc., gave generously to libertarian causes and built a profile in the community. He won his first election in 2014, and was elected majority leader this year. His financial profilehe donated $50,000 to a PAC financingliberty-oriented statehouse candidates this cycleand ability to deliver a growing libertarian base made him a strong choice for the leadership role. In an interview this fall, he said he hasnt attended Free State Project events such as PorcFest since 2013, though he remains part of the legislatures liberty faction, which includes sympathetic native New Hampshire-ites.

Osborne portrays himself as a bottom-up consensus builder, but under his leadership, the party has been strict in enforcing unity, and not just in the case of Bill Marsh. In summer 2021, nine-term state Representative Lynne Ober intentionally called a premature vote that threatened Republicans plans to kill Sununus paid family leave proposal and limit the governors emergency powers amid the pandemic. As punishment, leadership stripped Ober of her regular-session committee role. She and her husband, Representative Russell Ober, resigned from the legislature.

Punishments for speaking out havent been confined to Republicans. After the January 6 insurrection, Rosemarie Rung, a Democrat from Merrimack, was stripped of her committee assignments by the Republican speaker for tweeting a condemnation of a New Hampshire police chief who had attended the rally before the Capitol riot.

If there is irony in libertarians embracing a party controlled by a distant plutocrat who tried, and failed, to institute authoritarian rule, the Free Staters do not accept it. Sorens and other libertarians said they didnt believe Donald Trump had the same sway over the Republican Party in New Hampshire. But Sorens, now director of the Center for Ethics and Society at St. Anselm College, still has his doubts. He worries especially that libertarians will become more conservative as theyre embraced by Republicans. But, he noted, libertarians can still find things to appreciate about the party of Trump; for instance, the former presidents noninterventionist policy abroad.

And take the ban on critical race theory, an infringement on free speech from which liberty-minded people theoretically should recoil. Yet it was a Free Stater and friend of Sorenss, Keith Ammon, who brought forward that bill in the House. Here, Sorens hesitated. He thought college students and professors should be able to debate whatever ideas they wished in the classroom. But, he added, I also dont think I want teachers shaming five-year-olds because of their whiteness.

Whatever their methods and allegiances, the Republican majority has achieved results. This June, the legislature passed a $13.5 billion budget for the next two years, cutting nearly $300 million from Sununus original proposal. Onto the budget they tacked a ban on abortions beyond 24 weeks (unless to save the mothers life); the aforementioned ban on divisive race education in schools; a program creating education freedom accounts (essentially vouchers) that redirect public school money to private schools and homeschooling; and a raft of tax cuts.

Though familiar in Congress, the tactic of loading the budget with measures unlikely to pass on their own is new to New Hampshire, says House Minority Leader Renny Cushing. Cushing, an eight-term Democrat from the liberal seacoast region, offered grudging respect for Osbornes abilitiesHe knows how to count votesbut says he feared this would become standard practice in the New Hampshire legislature, giving minority constit-uencies such as libertarians and evangelicals a vehicle to push through policies the state as a whole doesnt want. And despite libertarians assurances that theyre willing to ally with Democrats to protect civil liberties and other shared priorities, Cushing says he hasnt found that cooperation to be forthcoming. I think the allure of the appearance of power quickly trumps any principled origins they may have had that caused them to migrate to New Hampshire, he told me.

If there was to be a breaking point between the legislatures liberty faction and Sununu, the law they passed limiting the governors emergency powers seemed to have potential. Free Staters and their allies resented Sununus mask mandate and limits on public gatherings, and even sent rifle-wielding protesters to picket his house, forcing him to cancel his outdoor inauguration earlier this year. But he has since repealed the precautionslaxer than those of surrounding states to begin withand has largely stayed silent as this legislature does its work.

Looming ahead is 2022. Heir to a political dynasty that has sent members to both the U.S. Senate and the governors mansion, Sununu has both the establishment pedigree and broad appealincluding to libertariansthat could make him a strong challenger to Hassan, especially during midterm elections in a purple state. Virtually everyone surveyed this fall agreed that he would have to keep the libertarian wing in mind, though opinions varied over the degree. Some libertarians, including Sorens, were skeptical of Sununus dependability, but Osborne had fewer doubts. In 2016, Hassan defeated incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte by a margin of 1,017 votes. Aaron Day, a Free Stater running as an independent, received 17,742.

He cannot afford to lose us, Osborne said.

Despite some recent successes, Sununus embrace of the libertarian faction has put him in a double-edged position that could turn against him in a matchup with Hassan, who can link him to the extremism of the Free State Project. Cushing, for his part, says he thought that the anti-abortion legislation passed this year, both in New Hampshire and places like Texas, would hurt Sununu in a race with Hassan. This September in the town of Bedford, Catherine Rombeau narrowly won a special election for state representative, giving Democrats two of seven seats in the conservative strongholdfor the first time ever. The backlash may already have begun.

By this fall, Bill Marsh, the physician chastised for his speech against an anti-vaccine bill, appeared to have learned his lesson. If he wanted to remain a Republican under New Hampshires new political order, it was best to be silent.

In a brief, cautious conversation in early September, Marsh referred a reporter to the Houses daily journal, which memorialized, as he put it, the speech that ticked everyone off. Otherwise, he said, I dont want to say anything that could jeopardize what I need to do going forward.

About a week later, the state Republican Party hosted a large rally in opposition to President Bidens nationwide vaccine mandate. For Marsh, this was the final straw. In December 2020, then Speaker Dick Hinch had died of COVID-19 after attending two unmasked, undistanced rallies of House Republicans. Marsh, who respected Hinch, publicly denounced Republicans role in the speakers death. For months afterward, he worked tirelessly to promote anti-COVID regulations that could survive libertarian backlashwork that was now being undone. On September 14, Marsh, a Republican since campaigning for Ronald Reagan in 1976, changed his affiliation to Democrat.

I still do see myself as a conservative, Marsh said in an interview afterward. I just dont think that Republicans are holding to the principles they once avowed. I cant call this conservatism. Its more likelibertarianism.

More here:
The White Mountain Boys - Washington Monthly

Don’t bank on an end to oil and gas handouts | TheHill – The Hill

The United States announced that, consistent withPresident BidenJoe BidenPfizer CEO says vaccine data for those under 5 could be available by end of year Omicron coronavirus variant found in at least 10 states Photos of the Week: Schumer, ASU protest and sea turtles MORE's Januaryexecutive order, it will end financing of oil and gas projects. Considering the likelihood of sizable exemptions, we remain skeptical.

In spite of our differences one of us is a libertarian who opposes all government-granted privilege to corporations, while the other is a progressive who believes government should provide a strong social safety net from cradle to grave and aid in the uptake of clean renewables we agree that the government should not prop up wealthy, politically connected corporations. Yet thats what the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) does, including for its wealthy friends in the oil and gas industry.

On average, the industry receives roughly$20.5 billion annuallyin direct U.S. subsidies, and$121 billion in tax breaks. When the pandemic started, the industry was fast to claim between $3 billion and $7 billion in free money from the Small Business Administrations Paycheck Protection Program. In addition, several federal agencies go to great lengths to serve their friends in the oil and gas industry, with the full support of Republican and Democratic White Houses and Congresses.

The Export-Import Bank is one such agency. Ex-Im describes its mission as supporting American jobs by facilitating U.S. exports. While this may sound good, its devilishness is revealed in its details. Historically,65 percent of Ex-Imfinancing has benefited 10 large domestic corporations, with 25 percent of its activities benefiting the oil and gas industry.

But Ex-Ims worst offense is its lapdog-like devotion to a few clients, such as Pemex, the Mexican state-owned energy giant and its biggest recipient. From 2007 through 2019, Pemex receivedsome $8.5 billion in taxpayer-backed loans.Between 2009 and 2017, fires, explosions and collapsing oil rigs killedmore than 190of its workers and injured more than 570. These accidents also resulted in severe environmental damage, including polluting three rivers, resulting in a half-million Mexicans losing access to clean drinking water.Recently, Pemexs disregard for environmental protection and safety caused aninferno in the Gulf of Mexicoresulting from a projectEx-Im supported.

These facts are well known to Ex-Im management. Yet, the agency nevertheless extended another $400 million in loan guarantees to Pemex last September. Now, its preparing another deal for Pemex, this time in a category with even less oversight.

Ex-Im is not afraid to go the extra mile to make its big oil-and-gas friends happy. In 2019, it announced a $5 billion deal (later revised to $4.7 billion) to support the development and construction of a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project in Mozambique. Documents provided by the agency in response to a Freedom of Information Act request revealed how itwillfully ignoredwarnings of the many associated risks.

Enter bigwigs in the American LNG industry, who were upset over a foreign competitor getting a leg up from Ex-Im financing, even though they have also been a recipient. They threatened to go public with their opposition to the Mozambique project. After some arm twisting, Ex-Im decided to placate the industry with its own deal: a 90 percent guarantee for a $50 million supply-chain-finance deal for the benefit of a Texas-based company, extended through a supply-chain finance provider in January 2021.All Ex-Im had to do to make it happen was to use the cover of the pandemic to lifta pesky requirement that 50 percent of suppliers be small businesses benefiting from the Ex-Im program.

Satisfied, the LNG industry withdrew its opposition to the Mozambique project, as revealed bya letter released under transparency laws and produced bySource Material, a non-profit investigative journalism organization.

Despite cheerful press releases celebratingbothdealsas milestones for the agency, not all was right in the world of subsidized oil and gas. By May 2021, the aforementioned finance providercollapsed into insolvencyand the Mozambique projects operatordeclaredforce majeure, which allowed it to cancel contracts, withdraw all its staff and avoid promised compensation to poor project-affected communities because of an insurgent attack.

Ex-Im should have known better. Indeed, the financier in question had already beenunder investigation by a German regulatorfor some time, which led to a criminal complaint in March 2021. More damning was that in September 2020, when Ex-Im was working on the deal, the finance providers insurer opted not to extend coverage for its lending, a move that ultimately led to its collapse.Such lack of due diligence is nothing new for an agency that caters to special interests far more than taxpayers or the public welfare.

Partisans may say that shenanigans were to be expected under President TrumpDonald TrumpHillicon Valley State Dept. employees targets of spyware Ohio Republican Party meeting ends abruptly over anti-DeWine protesters Jan. 6 panel faces new test as first witness pleads the Fifth MORE. But the Pemex/Ex-Im alliance, as well as the agencys commitment to oil and gas subsidies, existed long before Trump entered politics. It will endure under President Bidens tenure unless Congress forces Ex-Im to endallhandouts to the oil and gas industry.

Veronique de Rugyis the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow with theMercatusCenter at George Mason University.Kate DeAngelisis an international finance program manager with Friends of the Earth U.S.

Read more:
Don't bank on an end to oil and gas handouts | TheHill - The Hill

Mace vs. Greene is the fight for the future of the GOP – The Week Magazine

Rep. Nancy Mace is frequently in the news. On Thursday, it was the apparentlysudden exit of her chief of staff and campaign manager. And for much of the week, the libertarian-ish South Carolina Republican has been feuding with the wilder and woolier members of her conference, especially the ubiquitous Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)

The seemingly trivial spat is actually a glimpse into the future of the Republican Party. How the party should deal with self-promoting lawmakers like Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert(R-Colo.)is a proxy for its bargain with former President Donald Trump. The GOP's small but vocal liberty wing split over Trump, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)largely aligning himself rhetorically (if not always voting the MAGA line) and former Rep. Justin Amash(first R, then L-Mich.)ultimately leaving the party in protest.

Mace was initially inclined to stand with Rand on the side of Trump, but since Jan. 6 she has drifted, however fitfully, in the Amash direction to the degree that the 45th president would like to see her unseated in a primary. This was the fate that befell her predecessor, former Rep. Mark Sanford, another quietly libertarian-leaning Republican, whose criticism of Trump ended a political career that had improbably survived scandal. (Trump's interference also caused the district to fall to the Democrats for two years, though redistricting will make this outcome less likely.)

While some Republicans of Mace's ilk hoped to capitalize on Trump's less hawkish foreign policy rhetoric, others had deep disdain for the low-brow populism he unleashed within the party. They'll be forced to take a standif he runs in 2024. It's not clear that mud-wrestling with Trump's imitators is necessary, however. Trading insults with Greene gives her more oxygen while alienating Mace from conservatives who want their representatives to give liberals no quarter. Supporting primary challengers against Greene, Boebert, and palshas the potential to do more good than launching a flame war.

And however either type of fight plays out, it's worth watching. We can be fairly sure the Republican future isn't Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and the establishment, neoconservative throwbacks she leads. The debate is whether the GOP should steer toward Greene or Mace, and that debate is probably unavoidable.

See the original post here:
Mace vs. Greene is the fight for the future of the GOP - The Week Magazine

California NOT land of the free. Here’s the proof – KABC

The respected libertarian Cato Institute annually releases their list of most free and least free states and no surprise, the bluest statesCalifornia includedare at the bottom of the list. Read more and check out their interactive map here: https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

From the report: The overall freedom ranking is a combination of personal and economic freedoms.

ANALYSISCalifornia is one of the least free states in the country, largely because of its long-standing poor performance on economic freedom. However, Californias economic freedom has improved since the late 2000s and, perhaps as a result, so has its economic performance. California has long suffered from a wide disparity between its economic freedom and personal freedom ranking, but it is not as if the state is a top performer in the latter dimension. Indeed, it is quite mediocre on personal freedom, although its recent decline in rank has more to do with other states catching up and passing it than any backsliding in the state itself.

More here:
California NOT land of the free. Here's the proof - KABC