Mediaboss Marketing

The March 20 election is here.

Baton Rouge area residents will head to the polls to vote on a number of local elections and a pair of special elections for seats in the U.S. House.

Polling places will be open from 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. Anyone who is in line at 6 p.m. will be allowed to vote.

Voters are asked to bring an ID with them to vote. Voters without an ID will be allowed to vote after filling out an affidavit.

Voters are assigned to a specific voting precinct. You can look up your location at the Secretary of State's website byclicking here.

Once you enter your information, click 'My Election Day Voting Location.'

Visit geauxvote.com for more information on candidates.

Party abbreviations: D-Democrat, R-Republican, I-Independent; L-Libertarian; NP-No Party.

(Portions of Ascension, Assumption, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, St. James and West Baton Rouge parishes, plus the New Orleans area)

Chelsea Ardoin, R

Belden Noonie Man Batiste, I

Claston Bernard, R

Troy A. Carter, D

Karen Carter Peterson, D

Gary Chambers Jr., D

Harold John, D

J. Christopher Johnson, D

Brandon Jolicoeur, NP

Lloyd M. Kelly, D

Greg Lirette, R

Mindy McConnell, Libertarian

Desiree Ontiveros, D

Jenette M. Porter, D

Sheldon C. Vincent Sr., R

(Portions of East Feliciana, St. Helena, Tangipahoa and West Feliciana parishes, plus northeastern Louisiana)

Sandra Candy Christophe, D

Chad Conerly, R

Jim Davis, NP

Allen Guillory, R

Robert Lansden, R

Julia Letlow, R

Jaycee Magnuson, R

Horace Melton III, R

M.V. Vinny Mendoza, I

Richard H. Pannell, R

Sancha Smith, R

Errol Victor Sr., R

(5 to be elected)

Randy Anny, D

Wanda LeBlanc Bourgeois, R

Chad Domingue, R

Darnell Gilbert Sr., D

Duane Humphrey, D

Patti Melancon Poche, D

Tim Lazaroe, R

Wayne Messina, R

(5 to be elected)

Tracy Bryson, R

James Jimmy Fabre, NP

Gregory Hill, NP

Roy Miller, R

Ronald Marty Starkey, R

Hunter Stoetzner, R

(2 to be elected)

Elda Hootie Carter, NP

Kolby Frederick, R

Carlton Haycook, R

Read the rest here:
What's on the March 20 ballot? Baton Rouge residents will vote on these congressional, local races - The Advocate

JENNINGS COUNTY The Libertarian Party of Jennings County became a recognized political organization, as an affiliate of the Libertarian Party of Indiana (LPI), on Feb. 20.

The Libertarian Party is based on the premise that you know best how to run your own life, said county resident Kevin Coryell, who helped organize the local party and now serves as county chairman.

At the national level, the Libertarian Party was founded in Colorado in 1971 as a political organization standing against government intrusion and for the preservation of civil liberties.

The party is now the third-largest political party in the U.S., with official party organizations in all 50 states. The LPI was founded in Indianapolis on July 14, 1974.

Since its founding, the Hoosier branch of Libertarians has actively fought against property tax laws, the governmental encroachment of imminent domain protections, the restrictive licensing of businesses and election fraud.

While the party has been allowed to sponsor candidates on election ballots in all of Indianas 92 counties since 1994, not every county has a local organization.

We are growing fast now, and we are not going to slow down until we have the LPI in every county, said LPI State Chairman and Development Director Evan McMahon.

According to McMahon, 25 Indiana counties already have certified LPI affiliations, with 19 additional counties in process and 10 more counties ready to begin the process.

I feel the political angst the nation has experienced during the last several years is increasing our numbers because of what we stand for, and what we have always have stood for, McMahon said. I am fanatical about it because I believe in my country, and the moral and ethical rights my country protects. I do not want to live under someone elses boot and I dont want to see my neighbor live under someones boot either.

During the 2020 primary election, Jennings County saw a large number of residents vote for Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Donald Rainwater. Rainwater pulled in 22% of Jennings Countys votes for governor to Republican Eric Holcombs 62% and Democrat Woody Myers 15.9%.

On March 1, three candidates during the Vernon election ran as Libertarians, but none of the individuals won seats. Leading up to the election, Rainwater and other members of the LPI said they met with voters in Jennings County.

Id say we had about 150 people actively involved or at least interested in establishing the Libertarian Party in Jennings County, Coryell said. I say we have big Ls and little ls, and both are welcome. The big Ls pay dues and are really interested in getting things going. The little ls are interested, but maybe not so ready to commit.

According to State Libertarian Party of Indiana Chairman Michael Madden there are

plans to have LPI candidates run for 138 local, state and federal offices by 2024 Elections.

Coryell added that anyone interested in learning more about the Libertarian Party in Jennings County are encouraged to come to the next public meeting at the Jennings County Public Library on April 17 from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m.

More here:
Libertarian Party of Jennings County formed - The Republic

Although economists debate how serious this is for the short term, all are in agreement that this level of spending is not sustainable. We will reach a point where continued deficit spending with rising interest payments on debt will begin to drag our economy down.

Ironically, it is the insatiable thirst of the American voter for social programs that created this problem. And it is that thirst that will result in their loss.

Congress spends money in three areas: mandatory spending (primarily Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment), interest on the national debt, and discretionary spending (the annual budget Congress and the president work out for defense, homeland security, health, education, and all the other branches and departments of government.

Mandatory spending consumes the greatest amount of federal revenue (what the government makes from taxes). Federal revenue typically runs around $3.5 trillion a year. Since the advent of Obamacare, mandatory spending now requires about $2.6 trillion, or about 75% of the federal revenue.

Growing interest on the national debt requires Congress to allocate $350 billion, or about 10% of federal revenue. After allocating money for mandatory spending and interest on our debt, Congress is left with only 15%, or $525 billion, of all federal revenue for discretionary spending.

That $525 billion is not sufficient to pay for defense, schools and education, homeland security, and running all of our government agencies. Thus, to keep our country safe and operational we have to run a deficit. A large deficit.

The large number of social programs under mandatory spending is dragging down our countrys financial health. Congress and the president, politicians put into office by the American voters, have elected not to address the problem. The reason is simple. This is a long-term problem, and politicians are in for the short term.

President Barack Obama gave the American people the Affordable Care Act by borrowing on Americas future. In return, he got a nearly $12 million mansion in Marthas Vineyard. For the short term, it was a win-win for all. In the long term, Obama will still have his mansion.

The American voter, in general, is poorly educated to understand fiscal policy. Americans rank in the lower 15% of the 35 leading economic countries in math. We have little understanding of economics and lack fundamental knowledge of how our government works. Americans are poorly qualified to recognize a leader. They vote for those who say they will give them what they want. It is a pitfall of democracy when dealing with an uneducated public that votes.

So how do we fix our current financial situation? Cut benefits? That would be political suicide. Raise taxes? Based on evidence, Americans are taxed out. Obamas tax increase to pay for the Affordable Care Act did little to raise revenue.

President Donald Trumps tax cut actually had the end result of raising revenue. It created a booming economy with the lowest unemployment in history. More people working meant more tax money coming in.

But even that added revenue was not sufficient to pay for all of our social programs.

The answer lies in education. Unfortunately, the two major parties are not interested in an educated public. They have done quite well getting elected by the uneducated. In fact, the Democrats have made it policy to register as many uneducated people as possible to vote. San Francisco even attempted to give those 16 years of age the right to vote.

So, it is left to the Libertarian Party. It is the Libertarians task to educate the American voter.

Dave Crockett of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, owns engineering firms in Arizona and Michigan; is politically active; and is currently on sabbatical, working at Cirrus Aircraft in Duluth.

See the rest here:
Local View: Long-term spending problem won't be solved by short-term politicians - Duluth News Tribune

Homicides in the United States increased in 2020 by over 30 percent, on a year-over-year basis. Gun assaults and aggravated assaults also spiked, leading the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice to deem the crime surge of 2020 a large and troubling increase with no modern precedent. Tragically, the early available statistics for 2021 tell a similar tale. On the American domestic front, however, issues such as Covid, the economy, and illegal immigration still garner more headlines than the escalating rates of violent crime.

This blas attitude did not materialize overnight. Many in todays leadership class entered the public arena during a decades-long drop in crime that began during the Reagan presidency and continued well into this century. Following the widespread chaos of the 1960s and the harrowing urban crime sprees of the 1970s, tough on crime quickly became a popular bipartisan political stance. President Bill Clintons highly successfuland now oft-criticized1994 Crime Bill, which passed the House on a voice vote and the Senate by a 95-4 majority, exemplified this consensus. Confident that the new trend of plummeting crime would continue, many in the silent law-and-order-supporting majority gradually became complacent, implicitly abetting the political opportunism of emergent light-on-crime libertarians and progressives.

As the Tea Party-era Republican Party evolved into a more libertarian entity and the Democratic Party adopted an ever-more stringent identity politics, criminal-justice reformthe very inverse of the 1994 Crime Billbecame the new bipartisan fad. By the mid-2010s, George Soros had begun donating large sums of money to reshape the criminal-justice system, beginning at the district attorney level. Across many of Americas leading cities, light-on-crime district attorneys invoked prosecutorial discretion to justify non-prosecution of crimes like petty larcenyreversing the effective Broken Windows policing of the recent past.

The high watermark of the new criminal-justice reform movement was the First Step Act of 2018, an unparalleled federal jailbreak that passed the Senate by a staggering 88-12 margin. It was no big stretch to get from the First Step Act to last summers prolonged AntifaBlack Lives Matter urban anarchy.

Signs of a possible pushback have become evident. In Los Angeles, District Attorney George Gascnan archetype of what Andrew McCarthy calls the progressive prosecutor projectfaces a possible recall. And sizable majorities among all racial and ethnic demographics poll in strong opposition to the most extreme anti-law and order slogan: defund the police.

But the time is ripe for a more aggressive, sustained campaign against the de-carceral, de-civilizational agenda pushed by many libertarians and progressives alike. Citizens of all political stripes, especially conservatives, must recover and publicly advocate anew the time-tested and common-sense notion that a free and just society is impossible without a robust commitment to a strictly enforced rule of law.

Once upon a time, such an effort would hardly have been needed. Abraham Lincolns Lyceum Address, delivered 23 years before Fort Sumter, famously warned of the dangers of a mobocratic spirit taking hold among the citizenry. Almost a century later, President Calvin Coolidge observed, we are always confronted with the inescapable conclusion that unless we observe the law, we cannot be free. That a secure rule of law and a concomitant quashing of nascent anarchy is a necessary precondition for justice, human flourishing, and the common good ought to beand, not too long ago, wasas ubiquitous a belief as any in our politics.

But such a pro-rule-of-law national campaign is now necessary. Activists can start at the local level, getting involved in district attorney races to oppose anti-enforcement, de-carceral candidates. Voters should punish statewide attorneys general and federal legislators alike for throwing law enforcement under the bus and focusing their ire on the qualified immunity legal doctrine over substantive commitments to support law enforcement. Citizens should make themselves heard at city council meetings in support of more police officers on the beat, a proven and effective crime deterrent. Conservative commentators must grow comfortable calling out the excesses of light-on-crime libertarianism that come from their own side of the aisle. Republican politicians, cognizant of both the disturbing on-the-ground crime reality and the political truth that the small-government rhetorical emphasis of the Tea Party era is over, must recalibrate and shift back toward a traditional pro-law-and-order political platform. Such a platform would be both proper and popular.

We have reached the point where the pendulum has swung too far back toward decarceration, under-prosecution, and light-on-crime policies. The moral primacy of order and public safety must take precedence over fashionable peddling of pro-criminal bail reform and criminal-justice reform initiatives. We have been here before; we know what we have to do. Now its time to execute the game plan.

Josh Hammer is Newsweek opinion editor and a research fellow at the Edmund Burke Foundation. Twitter: @josh_hammer.

See more here:
Recover the Moral Imperative of Law and Order - City Journal

The nation's top infectious diseases doctor Anthony FauciAnthony FauciThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Forget about comity in Congress FDA official: US AstraZeneca stockpile not in danger of expiring Budowsky: Trump should champion vaccines MORE on Thursday clashed with Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulKentucky legislature limits governor's Senate appointment power Overnight Health Care: A number of Republican lawmakers are saying no to COVID-19 vaccines | European AstraZeneca suspensions threaten global COVID-19 response | OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma proposes B bankruptcy exit A number of Republican lawmakers are saying no to COVID-19 vaccines MORE (R-Ky.) over the need for people to continue wearing masks once they've already been infected with or vaccinated against COVID-19.

"You're telling everyone to wear a mask," Paul said. "If we're not spreading the infection, isn't it just theater? You have the vaccine and you're wearing two masks, isn't that theater?"

"Here we go again with the theater," an exasperated Fauci responded. "Let's get down to the facts."

Paul, who was infected with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic last March, has said he is immune to future infection. As a result, he refuses to wear a mask in the Capitol and has declared he does not need to be vaccinated.

Paul argued there are no studies that show significant reinfection among people who have recovered from the virus or after vaccination.

"I agree with you, that you very likely would have protection from wild type for at least six months if you're infected," Fauci said, but pointed out there is no protection from some of the more infectious variants, like the one one first found in South Africa. The variants are a "good reason for a mask."

"You're making policy based on conjecture!" Paul said, talking over Fauci and accusing him of wanting people to wear masks "for another couple of years."

"You've been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show," Paul continued. "If you already have immunity, you're wearing a mask to give comfort to others. You're not wearing a mask because of any science."

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance states that those who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 should still wear a mask in public.

Paul, a libertarian ophthalmologist, has clashed repeatedly with Fauci throughout the pandemic on a wide range of topics including the idea of herd immunity and the effectiveness of restrictions.

"Let me just state for the record, masks are not theater," Fauci said, adding that "I totally disagree" with what Paul said.

More:
Fauci clashes with Rand Paul over masks | TheHill - The Hill