Mediaboss Marketing

Vermin Supreme has been running for president for over 30 years. His two most recent bids polled at third and fourth in the 2012 and 2016 New Hampshire Democratic primaries, respectively. But now, the boot-bonneted boomer is running to win.

When I spoke to Supreme in January, he had just triumphed in New Hampshires Libertarian presidential primary. Now hes runner-up in the LPs primaries, with a chance to be on every Americans ballot come November.

This is my first legitimate, actual, bona fide, real campaign, he said. In the past, I ran as a Democrat and was not a Democrat, I ran as a Republican and was not a Republican. Right now, I am a Libertarian and seeking the Libertarian party nomination.

Its notable that I was recruited as a candidate. Supreme described how his now-campaign manager, Desarae Lindsey, approached him about seriously running, which hes been doing for about a year. His campaign staff now has at least 30 members.

Supreme said, This is a campaign that is unlike any other campaign that Ive run. It has strategic considerations.

For example, he told me, In the past, I loved to get on the New Hampshire primary ballot and get a lot of my publicity from that stunt. The Libertarian party of New Hampshire, however, did not want any fusion candidates, so I had to forego that.

He also feared that sore loser laws which forbid a defeated primary candidate from making a third-party run in the general might keep him off the ballot in some states.

I am making an offer to the Libertarian party, he said, an offer predicated on my internet celebrity, vast reservoir of political capital and good will, my experience as a seasoned campaigner, and of course, the power of the magic boot.

As you know, Supreme said, the boot is magic. It allows me to communicate with the media and millions of people from around the flat earth.

The magic boot is not all fun and games. According to Supreme, his public persona has helped him develop some simple, elegant, yet very effective techniques that are essentially a communications strategy.

My fanbase goes from far-left to far-right, it creeps into places where Im not even comfortable having fans, quite frankly, he said. But I cant really help that, except denounce their ideologies from time to time.

During our conversation, he expressed qualified optimism that this strategy would translate into success in the Libertarian primaries and even the coveted five percent of the national popular vote needed for a third party to receive federal funding. No Libertarian candidate has yet reached that threshold, but Gary Johnson captured 3.28 percent in 2016, the partys best-ever performance.

This expectation might not be unreasonable. More than just the American counterpart to the UKs Lord Buckethead, Supreme has long stood out among Americas perennial presidential candidates.

Some of his most famous policy proposals range from the pony pledge free ponies for all to the zombification of Americas political class, who would then operate power-generating treadmills. His endearing and memorable antics include the glitter-bombing of Randall Terry, another obscure candidate in the 2012 Democratic primaries.

But behind his political persona lies an incisive satirist and impassioned activist. A committed libertarian, Supreme has built up street cred as a cop whisperer in the rioters community.

I have been actively exercising the First Amendment to use my bullhorn to break the tension in some very intense police-demonstrator situations, he said. I like to read excerpts from crowd control manuals to the riot police to make sure they are trained up and aware of necessary public safety information. I help avoid crowd panic, which can be really dangerous.

Supreme believes that this background strengthens his credentials with people, especially young people, across the political spectrum.

Ive gotten TikTok famous all of a sudden, he said, discussing how he joined the platform after his campaign hashtags started trending. Essentially, Im the voice of a new generation, though its not my generation. Im a vessel, if you will.

I dont have any ambition about consolidating political power within the party or something of that nature, he said. But of course, theres a potential pay-off for the party and for myself. Thats the synergy.

Everybodys got their own motivations for running for president. Selling more books and college tours were never mine. With a chuckle, he added, But, eh, now they are a little bit.

Read the rest here:
Vermin Supreme's quest to win hearts, minds and the Libertarian primaries - The Spectator USA

Within the Jewish Community, much attention has been drawn to the 2020 Presidential Race.

The 29 major Democratic candidates stances on Jewish issues have all been examined and inspected. While the race for both Democratic and Republican nominee is beginning to wind down, the race for the Libertarian nominee heating up.

In 2016, Americas third-largest party was led by former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who received 4.5 million votes and was just under the cusp of gaining 5% of the vote nationwide.

A 2018 Gallop poll found that 57% of Americans say there is a need for a third party in America, and a 2019 poll by Gallop found that 42% of Americans identify as Independents. The Libertarian Party may not win the White House in 2020, but they certainly have the potential to play a role as a kingmaker.

Below are there are stances on Jewish issues by the top Libertarian candidates for President in 2020.

Chafee is the most notable candidate running for the Libertarian partys nod. The former Republican Senator and Independent Governor became a Libertarian in July 2019 and announced his candidacy for the partys nomination six months later.

Out of every Libertarian candidate, Chafee has the most explicit record when it comes to Jewish issues.

As a Senator in 2007, Chafee spoke at Brown University and said, I am unmovable on the point that the security of the state of Israel is paramount. Everything I have said and will say on the subject has as its ultimate aim the long-term security interests of our ally Israel.

That said, many Pro-Israel activists were upset with Chafees record on Israel as a Senator. Chafee was a critic of Israels expansion of settlements and called on the Bush administration to have a more balanced approach towards Israel.

Stephen Laffey unsucesffuly challenged the incumbent Chafee for Senate in the Republican Primary in 2005. Laffey was supported by Pro-Israel groups, including the Washington Political Action Committee and CityPAC.

Today, Chafee is a member of J Streets Advisory Council, which advises the liberal, Pro-Israel organization on issues pertaining to the two-state solution. Other notable members of the council include former Colorado Senator Gary Hart and Matt Duss, a policy advisor to Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign.

Chafee has an established record with Rhode Islands Jewish Committee. In 2014, he visited and met with seniors at a Jewish Community Center in Providence

Hornberger is the current front-runner for the Libertarian Primary winning five out of the eight non-binding Libertarian Primaries. He is the founder and President of Future of Freedom Foundation.

Hornberger is outspoken about his position to end all foreign aid to all nations, including Israel. At the same time, Hornberger has said he does not have a problem with fundraising drives across America that raise money for both the Israeli government and private Israeli groups. In 2018, Hornberger accused Israel of committing a massacre against Palestinians, and in 2019 he said the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) against Israel was in response to the longtime mistreatment of Palestinians.

In a 2019 op-ed, he stated that he supports open borders and believes that if America had open immigration in the 1940s, then the Holocaust would not have occurred. Hornberger has previously claimed that Hitlers anti-semitism was the result of an abusive father.

In the same 2019 op-ed, he inferred that the state of Israel was created because of the Holocaust. That opinion does fail to take into account the early Zionist Movement by Herzl, which began in the 1890s.

Supreme is a perennial satirical candidate and a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. Surprisingly, Supreme has gained support and has won two non-binding Libertarian primaries.

In the past, he has joked on Twitter about moving Israel to Arizona or the middle of Utah. He describes himself as supporting a no-state solution.

In 2013, Supreme Tweeted Ron Paul Doesnt Hate Jews, He Just Speaks To Groups That Hate Jews.

Kokesh is a military veteran, anti-war activist, and radio talk show host.

Kokesh is Jewish and his grandparents were forced to flee to Canada because of Europes anti-semitism.

Kokesh has claimed that he was a victim of anti-semitism by those who did not like his coverage of Occupy Wall Street. Kokesh has stated his distaste that anti-semitism is more acceptable than other forms of racism.

Kokesh describes himself as being an anti-Zionist and has been a vocal critic of Israel. He has accused Israel of being an apartheid state and of mistreating Palestinians. Kokesh opposes foreign aid to Israel and is against Israels policy of military conscription. He has defended Ilhan Omar from accusations of anti-semitism.

Behrman is a software engineer and podcaster who is notable for his position that taxation is theft. Behrman has made limited statements on Jewish issues.

In 2019, he criticized former Republican Congressman and 2020 Republican candidate, Joe Walsh, for supporting Israel.

Armstrong is a former NATO contractor and former member of the Honolulu County, Hawaii Neighborhood Board. He has not made any public statements directly about Jews or Israel.

Armstrong has expressed his opposition to the idea religions must teach certain subjects for them to get financial benefits from the government. He is against the government defining religion.

Blake is an 11th Grader at Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy in Bryn Mawr, PA. He most recently served as a Congressional District Lead (PA-4), a volunteer and Jewish Liaison for Andrew Yang's 2020 Presidential Campaign.

Read the original post:
Where the 2020 Libertarian candidates stand on Jewish issues? - The Times of Israel

Iowa Nice is a simple motto to some and a way of life for most. It may present itself in the form of gestures as simple as an index finger wave from the steering wheel to the stereotypical Ope, Im sorry..

As rigid, divisive and tribal as politics have become across the nation, the process of stepping out into neighborhoods and knocking on doors with a clipboard and a pen to obtain signatures for ballot access still often results in the respectful discourse that Iowa Nice is known for.

Over the past three weeks, I have been working closely with Libertarian Party members across the state as they have tried to obtain the signatures needed to get on the ballot this coming November. What started out as a speed bump while out door knocking quickly turned into a full fledged roadblock as concerns about the spread of COVID-19 took over all aspects of our lives. A welcoming greeting quickly turned into a respectful dismissal through a tiny crack in the doorway. Stopping on the street to engage in respectful debate with petitioners was replaced by a neighborly wave of decline in a time of social distancing.

Last week, I issued a request to Gov. Kim Reynolds and Secretary of State Paul Pate, on behalf of candidates from all parties, to issue a temporary delay in the filing deadlines for candidates based on the uncertainty of the recent coronavirus outbreak. While Libertarians are devoted to providing Iowans as many options on the ballot in November as possible, the health and welfare of petitioners and voters alike need to take precedent. With the recommendation to practice social distancing, a delay of the filing deadlines is not an unreasonable request. In fact, New York, one of the strictest states in the nation in terms of ballot access, ordered a temporary modification of their election procedures to ease the requirements to get on the ballot.

Our requests were ultimately denied, and while were excited to have eight Libertarian candidates on the ballot in November, there is no doubt about the impact made by the hurdles third-party candidates face in trying to attain ballot access. The one-two punch of the COVID-19 outbreak and early filing deadlines Iowas Legislature laid on third-party candidates last spring left a number of passionate Libertarians sitting on the sidelines while Republicans and Democrats can rest easy knowing that they can still qualify for the general election as late as August.

Theres still the opportunity to obtain the necessary signatures to ensure the Libertarian Party presidential nominee will give the nearly 38 percent of Iowa voters who are registered as a third-party or no-party a viable option outside of the duopoly that works so hard to control our daily lives.

If theres one thing that is absolutely certain, its that the Iowa Libertarians are not bowing out as easily as the Republicans and Democrats would like. We continue to fight the new ballot access laws in court, acting as a voice for all Iowans who deserve a choice on the ballot. We remain vigilant in fighting for policy that is focused on limiting government overreach and that gives every Iowan a beacon of liberty and freedom in a political landscape where both main parties are focused on depriving citizens of such.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Finally, with our devotion to private charity and goodwill, we will continue to prove that in times of need like the current crisis, if there is a party that truly exudes the characteristics of Iowa Nice, it is the Libertarian Party.

Mike Conner is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Iowa.

Original post:
Partisan stonewalling and coronavirus conspire against Iowa candidates - The Gazette

The Federal Reserves bag of tricks is now empty. Politicians, however, always have more lies to tell about the economy. Voters might get a shot at hearing the truth, however, if the Libertarian Party nominates the right candidate.

Its consistently a top priority for voters, even during the high points of this fake recovery from the 2008 recession. The economy is closely tied to other issues like health care and education, with their high costs due to government price controls and red tape.

The economy is the essential issue for a candidate to speak on, especially a libertarian one. Only a libertarian can get at the crux of the matter the Federal Reserve and its vacuous fiat money system causing madness in markets and the wealth stagnation of Americas middle class.

Beyond their pocketbooks, voters stand to also gain clarity of mind on so many other crises that fuel the governments growth in power. Thanks to the Feds easy money, U.S. militarism can run wild abroad and at home, well beyond what citizens would naturally put up with under direct taxation.

It takes a special communicator to raise the Fed issue and command attention. Only Dr. Ron Paul grew his crowds and audiences on his call to abolish the Federal Reserve, making it a populist campaign theme while educating the youth, referring them to Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other heroic economists.

In 2020, there is an effort within the Libertarian Party to do that again. Jacob Hornberger, one of six candidates vying for the partys nomination for president, seems to be leading the primary race in no small part due to his ability to speak on the Fed in an educational and exciting way.

Hornbergers track record goes back decades, founding the Future of Freedom Foundation in 1989. It grew with the Ron Paul Revolution movement, so many libertarian activists see him as something of a rightful heir.

End the Fed and separate money and the state, reads Hornbergers campaign website. The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a socialist central-planning agency.

Like Paul, Hornberger can connect the dots between Fed policy and housing, education, and other issues typically treated as wholly unrelated. This holistic approach contrasts with previous Libertarian Party presidential campaigns that attempted to dilute libertarianism down to fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

His nomination is no sure thing, however. The way the Libertarian Party decides its nominee is not by primary electoral victories, but rather a direct vote of the party delegates at the national convention. That event takes place the weekend of May 22nd in Austin, Texas.

The state contests until then will give a sense of what Libertarian voters support, and so far, Hornberger is leading with about 29 percent of the total vote after winning five of eight elections.

Markets are crashing as the Federal Reserve runs out of bubble-blowing tricks. President Donald Trump blames his own pick for Fed chairman for not printing money fast enough, while he also claims to have created the greatest economy ever.

Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are also full of lies, pushing essentially the exact same policy as Trump, though with more taxes and bureaucracy.

Whoever the Libertarian Party nominates, he wont be allowed to debate on the same stage as the Republican and Democratic nominees. But the party does have ballot access, and the internet isnt quite dead yet, so if there is any hope for voters to hear the truth about the economy, the Libertarian Party will be largely responsible for keeping it alive.

Go here to see the original:
On the 2020 Campaign Trail, Where's the Truth on the Economy? - The Liberator Online

I am a libertarian. I'm generally supportive of a very limited government that performs a few necessary functions. Redistributing wealth and bailing out folks from their own misadventures are not among those necessary functions of a limited government. If the government is going to provide a social safety net, it should try to design it so that it does not incentivize unproductive behavior and does not waste public resources.

Those considerations do not apply to the current debate over federal appropriations to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The government should just send the checks. Quickly and with minimal red tape. Means testing and complex fade outs are not what is useful in the moment. The immediate crisis calls for relief, plain and simple.

It is certainly the case that some on the left want to use the present moment to launch expansive new social programs. Those debates can wait until another day, and politicians on the left are doing no one any favors by trying to exploit the crisis by tying aid to a host of onerous restrictions or attempting to erect new permanent programs. Crises are often exploited to expand the state, and we should be vigilant in resisting such efforts.

Likewise, there are those on the right who have fallen into familiar routines of resisting any government assistance as a hand-out, packaging government assistance as a tax cut, or tying government assistance to their own favored set of conditions and exceptions. If we were discussing a new permanent social program, then such design details would matter a great deal and should be central to the debate, but we are not.

In the present moment, the government itself has ordered businesses to stop operating. The global pandemic has brought economic activity to a standstill in ways that could not have been anticipated or adequately planned for by responsible private actors. With good reason, the government has disrupted people's livelihoods and restricted individual activity for the sake of the common good. Even if we were to think the government has been misguided in some of the steps it has taken, the fact remains that the government has taken steps that have unavoidably done substantial economic damage.

In such circumstances, the government should compensate individuals for the damage it has wrought and relieve individuals from the unforeseen burdens that they have been asked to assume. What individuals earned last year has no bearing on what their current needs are given the government-ordered lockdown. The more complex and burdensome the government makes any financial assistance that it offers, the less effective it will be in mitigating the economic costs of the pandemic and relieving people of their current suffering from the effort to contain the pandemic. The more complex the policy the government attempts to design, the longer it will take to reach agreement on what to do, the more difficult and time-consuming the implementation will be, and the greater the uncertainty and economic disruption that the government will be creating. The more complex and nuanced the policy the government attempts to design, the more room there will be special-interest favoritism and rent-seeking cronyism.

The government's current efforts to lockdown social and economic activity in order to stem the spread of the disease will necessarily rely heavily on voluntary compliance. The state might be able to effectively quarantine some individuals or isolated areas, but it cannot for any extended period of time shut down the country. People will voluntarily assume some individual burdens for the collective good if the necessity of doing so is clearly explained and those burdens are not too onerous. The government cannot expect people to assume those burdens forever and cannot expect them to take truly heroic actions. The government needs an exit strategy from the current policy of containment, and that will eventually require extensive testing, tracking and individual quarantine. In the meantime, the government needs to minimize the damage and maximize the efficacy of the current containment strategy, and that requires relieving individuals from immediate financial uncertainty.

The government has instantly thrown millions of people out of work in what was previously a full-employment economy. There will be unavoidable economic consequences to that, and the government can only take steps to mitigate those consequences. It should, however, act as quickly to provide financial support for those adversely affected by the societal lockdown as it has to impose that lockdown. If the government had been more fiscally responsible in the past, we would be in a better position to take the necessary steps now. But we cannot fix past mistakes by closing our eyes to current needs.

Even a libertarian should support a simple, temporary program of massive relief to be immediately phased out as soon as the crisis has passed so as to collectivize the hardship of fighting this common foe and insure as smooth a transition as possible to the post-epidemic situation.

Original post:
Just Send the Checks - Reason