Mediaboss Marketing

It's Thursday in Nashville. Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen has parked her blue campaign bus in Centennial Park for her "Real Change For Real People" tour. There are tables with masks and hand sanitizer. Supporters gather early, their excitement seemingly unaffected by the pandemic precautions. A few cars slow down to observe the gathering in the park. After a mic check, Jorgensen is introduced and begins to speak.

Almost immediately, her speech covers the two most pressing topics of the summer: criminal justice reform and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back in June, Jorgensen attended a Black Lives Matter vigil for victims of police brutality. Her presence there received mixed reviews, with libertarians who distrust the official Black Lives Matter organization for some of its political and economic views facing off those who believe libertarians should be present in the Black Lives Matter movement protests. (The differences between Black Lives Matter the organization and the movement are explained here.) Regardless of the potential backlash, Jorgensen doubled down on her stance.

"We need change, and I'm glad [the protests] are getting the attention," Jorgensen tells me on the bus after the speech.

Jorgensen says that the Libertarian Party agrees with the national Black Lives Matter organization on several issues, such as the drug war, no-knock raids, and qualified immunity.

"But their answer is more government," she says, and "big government is what got us here to begin with."

Jorgensen mentions a meeting she had with a Black Lives Matter activist in Tulsa, Oklahoma. (The activist was not affiliated with the official Black Lives Matter organization.) They discussed the government's role in discrimination, with Jorgensen pointing out that the buses in the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott were publicly run and that segregation laws were enforced even though black residents made up the majority of the ridership. "Now imagine today, if Uber decided to discriminate against the majority of their customers. What if they treated their best customers that way? They would go out of business," she argued. Jorgensen says the activist told her that the experience was "opening his eyes."

"Libertarians have been talking about these issues for 40 years," she says. "I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement." Jorgensen points to the people who have used the protests to loot and commit violence: "They are going around basically inserting themselves into peaceful protest. And I've seen many clips of the protesters saying, 'Stop it. Go away. You're not helping us. We don't want you here.'"

When the demonstrations first began in May, black organizers and protesters across the nation desperately attempted to keep the violence in check. In one video, D.C. protesters hand-deliver a young man to nearby police after seeing him destroy a sidewalk. In her firsthand account of the Nashville protests, author Nancy French tweeted a video of a black protester arguing with white protesters over property destruction.

"We need to do what we can to keep the protests on target," Jorgensen adds.

The conversation then shifts to the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We're all adults, and it shouldn't be against the law to be stupid," Jorgensen says.

Jorgensen notes that with personal freedom comes responsibility. While she doesn't support mask mandates ("unless we're talking about a government building") or even a forced vaccine in the event that one is developed, Jorgensen sees private companies enacting mask policies as a sign that most Americans are taking the pandemic seriously.

"That just shows what libertarians have been saying for decades, which is just because the government doesn't tell you to do it doesn't mean it won't get done," she says. "We still have entities who are requiring us to wear masks. We don't have to wait until the government tells us to. But this way, we have choice."

Jorgensen adds that private companies wouldn't enact mask policies if they thought doing so would harm their profits: "I don't think they'd be requiring a mask if they thought that people would stop shopping in their store and they'd go out of business. So ultimately this is coming from the individual."

What does Jorgensen think the executive branch should be doing in the pandemic? "I think the president has the obligation to lead the country and to get information out there to warn people," she says. She is upset at President Donald Trump for saying, "If you don't have [COVID-19] symptomsdon't get the test." Given the disease's asymptomatic spread and long incubation period, she says, this was irresponsible advice.

Jorgensen also notes the variety of ways the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies have restricted access to mass testing. Such testing, she notes, contributed greatly to South Korea's flattening of the outbreak curve.

"We lost tens of millions of jobs," she says. "If we had the testing out there, if we didn't have the FDA obstacles, if we didn't have so many other government obstacles, we could've had widespread testing. And then we could have known which people should have stayed home and which could go out."

Our conversation concludes with aquestion about the current debate over voting by mail.

"It's fine with me if we have mail-in votes," she says. "As long as we do it through FedEx."

Read the rest here:
Jo Jorgensen on Black Lives Matter: 'I Think We Should Support the Protesters' - Reason

In case you just returned from an extended trip to Mars, be advised there is an election right around the corner.

You cannot pick any news source that does not bombard you with stories on every subject that have been impacted by the poisonous partisan atmosphere that has developed in America in the last 16 years. I think the real shift in attitudes began during the Gore-Bush election debacle and has escalated since then.

Locally, we have county and municipal elections that do not feature the rancor and hate speech generated by the major parties at the state and federal level. We elect council members and supervisors on their ability to project a message that speaks to our local needs. They see what is needed then tailor their platform to what their constituents want.

State and federal political candidates from the two major parties do just the opposite. They strategize issues then let experts tell them what positions will resonate with the most voters. They use social media and clever ads to tell us what we should care about, why they should get our vote and, more importantly, why the other party is trying to destroy us.

Is it time to rethink the way our system is structured? Do you check the box on your federal taxes to donate a dollar to the presidential election process each year? Why dont we ask taxpayers to fund the development of new parties?

A multi-party system found in many western countries would greatly benefit America. Today we cannot get Democrats and Republicans to agree or compromise on anything without an ugly partisan public brawl that usually ends with the American taxpayer getting shafted. A Congress made up of members of multi-parties, with no one party in majority would require coalitions and negotiation continually. Current politicians do not make deals, they make demands.

Neither party is definable any longer. The Democratic Party has moved from its southern conservative roots in the late-1940s to adopt a platform as far right in 2020 as any ever seen in its history.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is quoted to have said, "I dont think the street will accept no action on this," while discussing police reform legislation in June. She is crafting legislation based on the will of street protesters. This is the "new" base the Democrats are reaching for to construct a winning coalition. Part of that recipe is acceptance of continuing anger and violence, which keeps the public mood unsettled and questioning of the future. That is good for a challenger.

Not long ago, the Republican party revitalized itself by backing the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party formula to rail against out-of-control spending and government growth. Republicans had effectively moved from the image of rich country club dilettantes to a party concerned about American jobs, industries and debt. Middle class voters came back to the party because it seemed to care more about them. That party is no more.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an economic upheaval. But the total abandonment of fiscal sense on the part of Republicans to participate in throwing billions of borrowed dollars at solutions that are not proven or sustainable leaves the party directionless. If you will stand for anything, you stand for nothing.

We have alternatives. The Libertarian Party vote grows each election year. Their basic belief in limited government, fiscal restraint and freedom embraces the founders dreams and sounds a lot like what "Reagan Republicans" used to profess. The 2020 Libertarian Presidential candidate is Dr. Jo Jorgensen, a Psychology professor at Clemson University. She is smart, articulate and will not be invited to the Presidential debates.

The major parties have divided our country. Yes, Mr. Trump has not been a healer, but he did not invent identity politics. Pandering to segments of the electorate because of their race or ethnicity will never be a unifying message as it specifically is not inclusive. Issues can divide reasonable people, but assuming you have the support of an entire group because of their race, ethnicity or economic status is certainly divisive, if not biased.

Our parties will not let us discuss issues. You are either for them or against them. The term "moderate" has left political speak. No one on either side can afford to be a moderate.

Both the left and right, through the years, have destroyed free speech, lives and livelihoods via public intimidation. The Republicans had a good run with Joe McCarthy and his Communist witch hunts. The ultra-progressive Democrats are wreaking havoc now with their "woke" attacks on anyone and everything they deem off the party line.

The truth is, we have invested too much power to form public opinion in both parties. They are thinking for us in order to act in their own self-interest. We need to break that hold, add new voices who listen to us first and then act in our interest.

My friends in the GOP will roast me for this thought, but one wonders what would happen if 80% of registered California Republicans voted for the Libertarian Ms. Jorgensen in November. Its not as if we are harming Mr. Trumps chances to win California, that ship sailed a decade ago.

Do we still have enough free will to even discuss a multi-party political revolution in America, or are the cards and big bucks too stacked against real freedom of choice?

Contact Pat Orr at avreviewopinion@gmail.com.

Go here to see the original:
Around Town: Rethinking political parties - VVdailypress.com

A Nazareth woman pleaded guilty Monday to participating in an election fraud scheme.

Amber Correll, 39, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of making false signatures and statements on nomination petitions, according to a news release from Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

Police say she forged 25 signatures on nomination petitions for U.S. Congressional candidate Tim Silfies. The Libertarian candidate ran in 2018 against Susan Wild and Marty Nothstein.

There should never be a doubt that the men and women who appear on ballots or work to gather the signatures needed to get candidates before voters are following the law and doing honest work, Shapiro said in a news release.

Corrells attorney, Brandon Lauria of Philadelphia, didnt return a phone message seeking comment.

Police say Correll was paid to collect the signatures by Jake Towne, 40, of Easton. Thats not illegal, but police say Towne broke the law by signing papers saying he circulated the nomination petitions when in fact Correll circulated them.

At a preliminary hearing in January, Towne attorney Gary Asteak said its common practice for party officials to sign off as circulators of nominating petitions even though they didnt physically circulate the petitions. He said Towne looked over the sheet, matched the names to the addresses and was satisfied they were authentic.

Northampton County Libertarian Party Chairman Jake Towne, left, leaves his preliminary hearing with his attorney, Gary Asteak. Towne is charged with perjury for allegedly signing a candidate's nominating petition even though he didn't circulate the petition.Rudy Miller | For lehighvalleylive.com

Asteak said Towne turned down a really sweet deal to plead guilty and will take the case to trial. Towne is charged with five criminal counts, including perjury. Shapiros news release says Towne will stand trial in February. Correll will be sentenced after Townes trial.

This contrived case against Jake Towne is the result of a corrupt system that seeks to silence political activists. The charges against Mr. Towne originated with a GOP fishing expedition to coerce two third party candidates to withdraw from running for office. Circulators in Pennsylvania have never been required to witness signatures on a petition sheet. They only need to have requisite knowledge, meaning reason to believe that the signatures are genuine. Dozens of previous civil cases prove this. What Towne did has never been tried in a criminal court because it is not a criminal matter, said Libertarian Party Chairwoman Jane Horvath in an emailed statement.

She said Correll acted along to deceive Towne.

The attorney generals abuse of power will become evident as the details of this case unfold, and hopefully the public will take notice of how corrupt the two-party system really is, Horvath said.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Nicole Forzato is prosecuting Correll and Towne.

Towne ran for Congress in 2010 and ran for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 2018. He serves as secretary for the Northampton County Libertarian Party.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to Lehighvalleylive.com.

Rudy Miller may be reached at rmiller@lehighvalleylive.com. If theres anything about this story that needs attention, please email him. Follow him on Twitter @RudyMillerLV. Find Easton area news on Facebook.

Read more:
Nazareth woman pleads guilty in election fraud case - lehighvalleylive.com

Across the years and around the world, no single issue unites libertarians more than war, and no other issue is more important. Alibertarian despises war. In fact, one could view the whole libertarian project as opposition to war and militarism: Alibertarian disapproves of using violence to induce other people to do what one wants. Furthermore, alibertarian is hostile to the states attempts to impose military regimentation on society as awhole, treating citizens like soldiersorganized and trained by the state to effect the states ends.

The indirect effects of warmaking abroad are often inimical to liberty at home. The size and power of the state, which grow during war time, rarely return to prewar levels after the fighting stops.

Because wars inevitably create widespread death and destruction of property, threaten civil liberties, and encourage nationalist thinking instead of individualism and cosmopolitanism, libertarians treat war as, at best, an absolute last resort. Libertarians like Christopher A. Preble have cogently argued that alibertarian foreign policymust be restrained, shunning wars of choice, and that the military should be of an appropriately small size for that purpose. Some libertarians, like Bryan Caplan, think there are good reasons to oppose any and all wars, and many libertarians are inspired by the ideas and deeds of pacifists like Leo Tolstoy or William Lloyd Garrison.

More:
What is a libertarian? | Libertarianism.org

How long has Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden been in the political game? Long enough to have been at the center of a smear campaign during the Senate confirmation hearings of the longest-serving member of the current U.S. Supreme Court.

The 1991 showdown over Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas is mostly remembered today for the accusations of sexual misconduct leveled by Anita Hill. But the hearings actually kicked off with Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden trying to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.

"I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety," Biden told Thomas shortly after the nominee's opening statement. "And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, 'I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would'not could, would'strike down laws restricting property rights.'"

"It has been quite some time since I have read Prof. Macedo," Thomas replied. "But I don't believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court."

Biden claimed that he didn't buy it. "Quite frankly, I find it hard to square your speeches," he told the nominee, "with what you are telling me today."

Thomas gave the speech in question at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco on August 10, 1987. It touched on a number of issues, including the views of Stephen Macedo, then an assistant professor in the government department at Harvard University and the author of The New Right v. the Constitution, a 1987 book published by the libertarian Cato Institute. The book made a case for "principled judicial activism."

Macedo's book was basically an extended critique of Robert Bork, the highly influential conservative legal thinker who championed a thoroughgoing doctrine of judicial deference. The "first principle" of the U.S. system, Bork insisted, was majority rule, not individual rights. What Bork's view meant in practice was that the federal courts should defer to lawmakers in most cases. "In wide areas of life," Bork argued, "majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities."

Macedo advanced the opposite view. "When conservatives like Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers," he countered, "they precisely reverse the view of the Founders as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights."

Which brings us back to Thomas. Here is his 1987 Macedo quote in full:

I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court, which would strike down laws restricting property rights. But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self-government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy. Hence, I strongly support the nomination of Bob Bork to the Supreme Court. Judge Bork is no extremist of any kind. If anything, he is an extreme moderate, one who believes in the modesty of the Court's powers, with respect to the democratically elected branches of government.

So yes, Thomas said he found Macedo's arguments "attractive." But then Thomas immediately faulted Macedo and endorsed Bork, the very figure that Macedo was trying to bring down. In other words, Biden ripped Thomas' words out of context to give them the opposite meaning of what Thomas actually said.

The whole episode reflects poorly on Biden.

Continue reading here:
When Joe Biden Tried To Paint Clarence Thomas as a Crazy Libertarian - Reason