Mediaboss Marketing

Many of my fellow libertarians were rightly in a tizzy after former CIA director John Brennan, commenting on the right-wing insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol, notedthat the Biden administration is "now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we've seen overseas."

In particular, they were dismayed by his description of an "unholy allianceof religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativistseven libertarians." Brennan's former deputy chief of staff clarified the "even libertarians" comments to Politifactnoting that, "many self-identified libertarians acknowledged their participation in the disgraceful events of 6 January."

The big concern isn't the cheap swipe at libertarians, some of whom probably deserve it. Instead, the fear is that Brennan's words provide a template for the"mission creep"that accompanies every government effort to battle some growing threat.

Let's dispense with the obvious. The attack on the Capitol was an outrage. The federal government should prosecute those people who committed acts of vandalism or violence. Congress and voters have every right to inflict a political price on elected officials who fanned the flames of the insurgents. Homegrownradicalismis indeed a serious problem.

However, we should be leery about giving the feds additional powers. "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels,"wroteBaltimore's famed journalist H.L. Mencken. "For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Or as former Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.), who was the first member of Congress from the Libertarian Party, tweetedin opposition to a new domestic-terrorism bill: "There are too many federal criminal laws already. Terrorists can be charged under multiple statutes. Laws passed in the heat of the moment, like the Patriot Act, are routinely applied nefariously against law-abiding Americans." Read that last sentence aloud for effect.

On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a fertilizer bomb in a van at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people in the nation's deadliest terror incident before 9/11. That date marked the second anniversary of the federalsiegeof the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texasan event that radicalized McVeigh and his accomplices.

At the time, a militia movement was gaining steam. The Oklahoma City atrocity spurred Congress topassthe Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. As is often the case with these "in the heat of the moment" proposals, this measure passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress. President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

The law meant to "deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes," but mainly gutted the right tohabeas corpus. Scholars call that constitutional protection the "Great Writ of Liberty" because it provides a process for wrongly imprisoned people to challenge their detention in court.

Fast forward to Oct. 26, 2001, when President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Acta bipartisan effort to protect the country after the September 11 attacks. Critics have penned volumes on the law's unintended consequences, but this ACLU summaryis succinct: "It gives sweeping new powers of detention and surveillance to the executive branch." It deprives "the courts of meaningful judicial oversight to ensure that the law enforcement powers are not being abused."

Now here we go again. The 17-pageDomestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021would "authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the federal government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism."

What could go wrong with giving the feds more open-ended powers? "What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are talking about?"asked former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (DHawaii) on a recent TV news show. She's right. If you give law-enforcement agencies an inch, they'll take a yard. In building a profile of extremists, she fears that the feds will zero in on evangelicalsor maybe even libertarians.

Of course, our state government is getting in on the action. State Sens. Henry Stern, (DLos Angeles) and Tom Umberg (DSanta Ana) have introduced a billthat would create state investigative teams to "assess potential threats" from right-wing agitators. Such groups definitely are troublesome, but how will the state define these terms? Will it surveil law-abiding people in the process?

You'd think Americans have learned enough from the unintended consequences of those 1996 and 2001 laws to rush down thispath again. One needn't be a member of a wing-nut groupor even a libertarianto understand how the government might misuse its new powers.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

Read more:
Don't Let the Capitol Riot Become an Excuse for Expanding Government Power - Reason

Eight days ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Gallup reported that "(a) majority of Americans, 57%, say there is a need for a third, major political party. The poll results aren't an artifact of Donald Trump's presidency: These views have been consistent since 2013."

Easier said than done, though. Duverger's Law puts it bluntly: "(The) simple-majority single-ballot system favours the two-party system."

With more than 140 years to entrench themselves in that system and fortify their position with ballot and debate access barriers to keep competitors broke and voiceless, the Republicans and Democrats have little to fear.

Or do they?

Trump himself has quietly leaked word that he intends to remain with (and in control of) the Republican Party rather than launching a "Patriot Party" as many in his committed base, feeling betrayed by GOP cooperation in certifying the election results, had hoped and called for.

Perhaps he's meditated on the fates of three Progressive Parties created as vehicles for former "major party" contenders (former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Senator Robert La Follette Sr. in 1924, and former Vice-President Henry Wallace in 1948).

Or maybe he's just biding his time, waiting to see whether the Republican Party remains in his grip, before pulling the "Patriot Party" trigger if that looks like a plausible path back to power. Things could still get interesting.

Duverger's Law predicts a two-party system in general, not the dominance or even survival of any particular two parties.

The Whigs, split over the issue of slavery, fell on hard times and were displaced by the Republicans in the 1850s. While it's unlikely that a notional "Patriot Party" could replace the Republicans as a major party, such a Trump-centric effort might enjoy just enough support to take the GOP down with it, creating an opening for something new.

One side effect of the long Democrat/Republican "duopoly" is a sleepy centrism. If political ideology is a 360 degree circle, the "major" parties cover perhaps five degrees in the comfy "center-right" arc of that circle. As third party (and proto-Trumpian) presidential hopeful George Wallace noted in the 1960s, there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between the two in substance, despite their "polarized" presentations.

Could the (third-largest) Libertarian Party or (fourth-largest) Green Party surge into the vacuum left by a Republican fade? Decades of failure to make much headway say Americans aren't ready for that degree of change.

But if change is coming whether Americans are ready for it or not, both parties have advantages. They already hold a few elected positions (on city councils and in state legislatures, even one Libertarian congressman for a year). They're veterans at navigating difficult ballot access barriers. They're tanned, rested and ready.

As the news guys like to say, "developing."

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

See more here:
The next major party won't be a Trump production - Dearborn Press and Guide

When you drive around in an SUV thats got the words Pot Trooper painted on it along with various pro-marijuana slogans, you might expect to attract the attention of the police at some point.

For Ed NJ Weedman Forchion, that point came on Friday evening as he was driving through the Passaic County town of Wanaque.

Early Saturday morning I got a message from Forchion:

I was arrested for weed, it read. Small amount and the police seized all my money.

The ostensible reason for the stop, Forchion told me, was that he had a green light over his license plate instead of a clear one. But once he was pulled over, the Weedman said, the officers Googled him and found out something that most of us who spend time in Trenton already know. He openly operates a pot dispensary, an activity that he maintains is perfectly legal.

The constitutional amendment was enacted on January First and it said marijuana is now legal, Forchion said in a video of the arrest he posted on Facebook.

In November, voters did indeed pass by a 2-1 margin a Constitutional Amendment to Legalize Marijuana.

But that didnt stop the Wanaque cops from charging the Weedman with pot possession and confiscating $9,000 in cash they found in his car.

Forchion also operates a restaurant at his Trenton location, and he maintains the cash came from that operation.

My rent is $4,200 a month, Forchion said. That was my rent money.

Maybe it was. But theres a wonderful irony here that our state legislators would do well to ponder.

Under federal law, marijuana remains illegal. Banks are not permitted to handle the proceeds. That creates considerable complications for the medicinal-marijuana dispensaries now legal under New Jersey law. Presumably those new adult-use dispensaries in New Jersey would face the same problems.

I know one prominent politician in New Jersey who had a solution for that problem. When he ran for president in 2016, then-Gov. Chris Christie said that if elected he would shut down marijuana sales if elected.

If youre getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it, Christie said in 2015. As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws.

Christie later softened that stand a bit, saying states have the right to do what they want to do on this. But the federal laws he cited are still on the books. So in the eyes of the feds, Weedmans dispensary and the state-approved dispensaries could both have their cash confiscated.

When I spoke to the Weedman, he said the issue of cops confiscating cash is very much a live one in urban communities.

I dont know how many times they found pot on me and took the money, Forchion said. In urban neighborhoods they take your money.

That is indeed a common practice, said one libertarian activist. John Paff is a retired insurance executive whos devoted a lot of time to fighting asset-forfeiture laws.

For a lot of minorities whove had their cash confiscated, It costs more for them to engage in the process of getting it back, so they lose the money, he said.

Weedman has hired a lawyer to fight the confiscation. Hes also filed a federal suit arguing that marijuana became legal the moment that amendment took effect.

Thats not the Murphy administrations view. But quite a few legislators are sympathetic to the Weedmans stance on how pot laws affect urban minorities. Thats central to the dispute over legislation thats been on the governors desk since Dec. 17.

Murphy has said he wont sign a bill that eliminates penalties for pot possession by juveniles. But legislators from urban areas argue that such penalties would encourage the stop-and-frisk policies, the same policies that Forchion and Paff say can end with cash being confiscated.

The state senator whos been the architect of the legalization bills told me yesterday that a compromise is in the works.

The process should be complete by the end of next week, said state Sen. Nick Scutari (D-Union). Were going to have a hearing Monday, another on Tuesday and have it passed by Thursday.

Once the bill is signed into law, the charges of simple marijuana possession lodged against the Weedman and others should be dismissed, Scutari said.

But at what point would a dealer like the Weedman get to legalize his operation?

Hell have to go through the application process, Scutari said.

That process includes the establishment of a Cannabis Regulatory Commission that would set up rules for the sale of legal weed. I asked Scutari whether that process might stretch out for a year or more.

Lets get through next week first, said the senator. Then we can talk about the next delay.

The Weedman certainly will.

PLUS- THE MORE THINGS CHANGE:

Check this website on the history of alcohol Prohibition in New Jersey. Note the appointment of World War I hero Ira Reeves to head up Prohibition enforcement:

But Reeves quickly became disillusioned. Virtually everyone around him drank with impunity. Under political pressure, he had to promise not to raid the state legislatures annual dinner. But worse was the pervasive corruption of law enforcement officers and entire departments. The chief of police in Trenton had Reeves agents arrested for carrying concealed guns without a permit.

Read the whole thing.

Original post:
Cannabis and cash: Not so perfect together | Mulshine - NJ.com

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set newsroom policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Although President Joe Bidens $1.9 trillion aid and stimulus package now appears likely to pass, the current state of the economy suggests that a much smaller program would suffice. Vaccines are on the way, many state budgets are in OK shape, household balance sheets are robust including many for the poor, real estate is booming and retail sales are above where they were a year ago.

Make no mistake: A faster and better public health response is imperative, both to save lives and to drive a recovery. It is not necessary, however, to juice the economy at the scale being proposed.

There are, to be sure, arguments for such a large package. But they do not represent the best economic advice.

The first principle of economics is opportunity cost, namely that any policy should be compared with possible better alternatives. Under this analysis, the current plan falls short. It has far too much for consumption, and not nearly enough investment. Major plan components include a $1,400 cash transfer, a lot more unemployment insurance, aid to schools, paid leave provisions, aid to state and local governments, and temporary transfers to families.

A lot of this cash will be saved, diminishing its effect as stimulus. There is also the risk that distributing goodies will become a periodic vote-buying mechanism, a practice that will be abused but would never be popular if the public had to pay for it upfront. At the very least, some elements of this package should be linked to future economic conditions.

Nonetheless, after the failures of the response to the Great Recession more than a decade ago, the notion of spending almost $2 trillion, much of it on the poor, represents a kind of catnip for progressives. It is so geared to their natural inclinations that they cannot help but support the proposal.

Leave aside the political question of how aggressively to pursue an agenda of a larger, more activist government (and keep in mind that I am more libertarian than many of the participants in this debate). Take a big government as a given. History shows that consumption still ought not be the priority.

First, wise public sector investments are better for the poor than one-time wealth transfers. The U.S. is still reaping the benefits of the great public health and public works achievements of the 20th century. Second, the most enduring and beneficial government-transfer programs, such as Social Security, have been built on sustainable majorities.

Progressive societies are fundamentally based on a valorization of investment in physical structures, in software, in sustainable policies. This argues against a Lets grab this policy win while we can attitude, no matter how popular that stance may currently be on social media. Its foolish to think that no other policy combination is politically feasible, and if the presidents advisers and supporters really believe that, they are in for a long and unsatisfying four years.

Its not as if there arent obvious candidates for alternative investment: green energy, broadband and public health infrastructure for the next pandemic, to name a few. Yes, I am familiar with the argument that spending the extra trillion or so now will make it possible to spend more trillions later, including on such policies. But whatever kind of complicated political story you might tell, the basic laws of economics have not been repealed. Increasing current expenditures does, in fact, involve foregone future opportunities.

The defenders of the presidents plan argue that inflation and an overheated economy are not major risks. Maybe so, maybe not but that is not the crucial issue. Instead, ask yourself this question: Does this program, or this rhetoric, recognize the paramount importance of investment, whether public or private? If not, you neednt look much further.

The rest is here:
If Joe Biden goes big now, he may have to go small later - Bangor Daily News

If you are hoping to vote in primaries this year and you are currently affiliated with a smaller party, you have until Sunday to update it in Erie County.

If we've learned one thing this year, it's that voting is one of the most important things you can do. It shapes the political landscape nationally and locally.

This year isn't a presidential election year, but if you plan to vote in primaries this year, you will need to make sure you are associated with one of the political parties that have what they call "ballot status."

Those parties includeDemocratic, Republican, Conservative, or Working Families parties.

This is important for people who are currently affiliated with theGreen, Independence, Libertarian, SAM, Womens Equality, and Reform party members because those parties are no longer recognized in NYS.

Again, that doesn't mean that you will have to vote for a candidate that is in one of the "ballot status" parties, but it's the only way that you can vote in primaries for those parties. Otherwise those people will only be able to vote in special and general elections

So how do you change your party affiliation?

Go to elections.erie.gov and click on "Party Registration Change Deadline." That will give you all the info you need to change your party affiliation.

The Erie County Board of Elections sent out a letter to the 36,000 Western New Yorkers that this will affect with a change form and affidavit that has to be returned to the Board of Elections before Sunday. Any changes that take place after that will not be effective until after the June primaries.

Read the original:
This Sunday Is The Deadline To Switch Voter Affiliation In Erie County - wyrk.com