Mediaboss Marketing

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is notorious for being a principled voice for limited constitutional government. Even better, he amuses us with how swiftly he induces tantrums among the political establishments flunkies.

Aside from President Donald Trump, its Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who is usually the face of evil for liberals. But on Tuesday night, an NBC News story, based on two anonymous McConnell-linked sources, redirected the ire squarely on Paul.

What did the libertarian ophthalmologist-turned-politician do to deserve this? He did his job.

Paul proposed an amendment to the coronavirus bill being rushed through the Senate after passing the House 363-40. For those keeping track, libertarian-leaning Republican Thomas Massie didnt vote, and libertarian-leaning Independent Congressman Justin Amash voted present.

Pauls amendment, according to NBC News reporter Julie Tsirkin, was officially summarized as: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require a social security number for the purposes of the child tax credit, to provide the President the authority to transfer funds as necessary and to terminate United States military operations and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.

Twitter is littered with righteous indignation constantly, but Tuesday night, it was mostly directed at Paul. And it was mostly thanks to the NBC News story poorly co-written by Tsirkin.

Before getting into the catty tone of the article, lets consider the actual concerns people have with Pauls amendment.

First, isnt there a national emergency going on? Now isnt the time for nitpicking whats legal under the Constitution or how Congress appropriates funds. Theres no time for delay, were led to believe.

The answer to this critique is short, because there simply is no delay in voting beyond a few minutes just because an amendment is proposed. All of this drama is just political theatre, with McConnell aides directing the show.

Second, and perhaps more reasonably, it may be asked what the war in Afghanistan has to do with this coronavirus. That almost begs the question though. Why is Congress leaping to this hot new political commodity known as a coronavirus when theyve skirted their true duties for so long?

Beyond the deadly Afghanistan misadventure being a drain on financial resources, its worth investigating how human resources are wasting away, mired down in that desert. In Syria, most of the U.S. troops are from the South Carolina National Guard. Might be nice to have them here!

Here Paul is doing the job all the other senators are supposed to be doing. Unfortunately for him, it doesnt fit into the narrative most comfortable for the political and media elites.

As a result, we end up with junior high school level journalism weaponized against patriotic dissent.

Paul is notorious for forcing votes on amendments he knows will not pass, the NBC News story goes.

It concluded in a similar fashion: He even briefly caused the government to shut down in 2018, using a procedural tactic to block the Senate from meeting the deadline to keep the government open because he objected to the price tag.

Both of these statements are lies, though the authors probably believe them. Its a sure sign of the deep divisions in the country.

Whether its the 9/11 Victims bill, the Ukrainegate impeachment failure, or foreign aid, Paul consistently upsets the right people by doing the right thing. This doesnt mean Paul is perfect, but it does mean Americans should appreciate his special role in Washington, DC.

Original post:
Rand Paul Proves He Is Too Good For Us, As He Upsets the Right People - The Liberator Online

On March 14, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo suspended the signature-gathering process for candidates for political office in his state to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus, while at the same time reducing the number of signatures that will be required for each office this year by approximately 70%.

Public health experts have been clear that one of the most common ways to communicate COVID-19 is through direct person to person contact, and we are doing everything in our immediate power to reduce unnecessary interactions, Cuomo said in a news release. This executive order modifies the election process in a way that both protects public health and ensures the democratic process remains healthy and strong regardless of the ongoing pandemic.

On that same day, the chairs of the three minor political parties in Minnesota came together and submitted a joint letter titled Urgent policy change request, to accommodate the COVID-19 emergency declaration made for Minnesota health/safety, as it applies to current minor political party petitioning practices and requirements.

Despite multiple requests to top officials, none have responded. And now that the Minnesota Legislature has put itself into hiatus until April 14, it seems apparent that Gov. Tim Walz needs to quickly address this situation with an executive order akin to Cuomos.

To maintain fair elections, while recognizing that the health and safety of all Minnesotans is paramount during this outbreak, we hereby call on Gov. Walz, Secretary of State Steve Simon, Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm, and Senate and House elections committees to act immediately to suspend the physical petitioning requirement and/or the current filing deadline, currently set as June 2, 2020.

In exactly eight weeks, the states three minor political parties (the Libertarian, Independence-Alliance, and Green parties) will enter a limited two-week window for gathering petition signatures to secure ballot access. Each party must collect several thousand signatures during the last two weeks of May (and only then) to nominate and place candidates on the fall general election ballot. It is a process these three parties have completed consistently every election cycle for decades.

But an environment suddenly exists that makes this process a health risk, for both the individuals who do the petitioning and the citizens being approached and asked to sign a nominating petition. Petitioning requires constant face-to-face interaction.

For scope, the Libertarian Party of Minnesota alone intends to dispatch dozens of volunteers to go door-to-door to gather 2,000 signatures each for candidates for president and U.S. Senate, 500 signatures for each of six Minnesota legislative races planned, plus a 50% cushion. To find these 10,000 willing signatories usually requires knocking on over five times that many doors. In other states where petitioning is currently underway, people are avoiding petitioners (understandably so) which is more than tripling the number of door-knocking interactions needed.

An efficient solution already exists, if acted on, in proposed bills SF 752 and companion HF 708. Introduced in 2019 and amended in 2020, these bills remain stuck in committee. If passed, the legislation would provide that political parties that achieved over 1% in the last statewide vote would be allowed to put candidates onto ballots using internal party process, such as convention endorsement, or by filing fee, or with a different deadline that extends to mid-August (around the time of the state primary).

Enacting these proposals will change behaviors for the (only) three minor parties that exist in Minnesota. This will prevent hundreds of thousands of face-to-face interactions from happening soon.

We must not undermine fair elections or endanger public health. We look forward to working with state officials to thoughtfully prioritize the health, safety and rights of all Minnesotans.

Chris Holbrook is chair of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota. Phil Fuehrer is chair of the Independence-Alliance Party of Minnesota. Trahern Crews is chair of the Green Party of Minnesota.

Follow this link:
OPINION EXCHANGE | Amid the outbreak, Minnesota's minor political parties will struggle to get on the ballot - Minneapolis Star Tribune

The extreme measures being taken in this state and the country to slow down the spread of COVID-19 has led to some fierce debates about the role of government vs. the liberty of individuals to make their own decisions.

Here in the Wenatchee Valley, Gov. Jay Inslees actions to shutter schools, close bars and restaurants (except for curbside pickup) and ban large gatherings hit a flashpoint when the owner of the Wok About Grill, Shon Smith, posted a defiant message on Facebook announcing he would not comply with the rules.

The posting started a firestorm of comments that at one point had 500 likes and 1,000 expressions of dislike. Smith ultimately chose to comply with state law, to his credit. We've all made decisions in the heat of the moment that we have regretted at least I know I have.

I am going to try to take a step back and see if I can put this in a larger context of whats happening in our society, because it is symptomatic of a fundamental divide in this country.

Those who liked Smiths initial decision talked about their admiration for his support of employees who would miss paychecks, which is a legitimate concern. We all need to be concerned and take meaningful actions to support local businesses and others when social distancing is the norm.

The other major thread in comments by those supporting his message was that government has no right to take such a unilateral action and that individual businesses (and I presume nonprofits) should make their own decisions.

Those who expressed exasperation with Smiths decision raised the issue of the impact of ones actions on the community as a whole. Were seeing the nightmare unfold in Italy where some seriously ill old people are not being treated because they lack the resources. They ignored it, as did the Trump Administration in the critical first weeks of the outbreak, resulting in a failure to be able to adequately test for the virus.

If we dont slow the spread of coronavirus by social distancing and extreme measures like shutting down sports and entertainment venues, we could well see the same scenario happening here. Thats the crucial argument for accepting these limitations on our liberty.

There is some value in the Libertarian mindset, but it raises a fundamental question of what kind society we wish to have. If individualism is the only thing that matters, does that mean individuals have no responsibility for the most vulnerable in our society or for the community as a whole? Why does it have to be either/or? Cant it be both/and?

Some time ago, a founder of the Tea Party and a devoted Libertarian, Matt Kibbe, had a dialogue with liberal activist Heather McGhee, moderated by Krista Tippett. They explored areas of common ground as well as areas of disagreement.

One of the things that McGhee appreciated about Libertarians was that they have been supportive of criminal justice reform to address the problem of mass incarceration in this country.

I was fascinated by Kibbes perspective on individual rights vis-a-vis caring for others. Libertarians are guilty of deemphasizing the importance of community, deemphasizing the value of helping other people, he said.

Kibbe emphasized the importance of cooperative action in community. And this is not because somebody long ago passed a law, he continued. Its because people working through their differences actually came up with a common set of understandings about how we could get along with each other.

We need to be supporting businesses and everyone who is going to be struggling to make ends meet in the coming weeks. We have a lot of children who need to be fed, families to be supported, elders to care for, etc.

We have people on the front lines medical personnel, firefighters, law enforcement and EMTs who will be putting their lives on the line helping those who are stricken.

This is a time to put the most vulnerable in our community first and ourselves second.

Read the original:
Opinion | Rufus Woods, Art of Community: Now is the time to sacrifice for elders and the vulnerable - wenatcheeworld.com

The process of reviving online betting and sports betting in the US kicked off with New Jersey challenging the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, also known as PASPA.

Under PASPA, only four states (Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana) were exempt from the all-around ban on sports betting that was in power until 2018. Thanks to the Supreme Courts decision that declared PASPA unconstitutional, states across the US are now free to decide whether or not online betting will be legal.

Many of them have decided to legalize betting; an act that all new bookmakers available in the market welcomed with open arms. Fourteen states have already jumped the bandwagon and allowed full-fledged betting, with many more to join in 2020.

In this article, we will refer to the states that are set to regulate betting this year and to those that are expected to do the same in the upcoming years.

Sometime around Christmas 2019, the Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, signed bills that ratify online sports betting and casino gaming in the state of Michigan. The House Bill 4311 or Lawful Internet Gaming Act, gives power to the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) to issue licenses to online casino operators.

The House Bill 916 or Lawful Sports Betting Act, allows operators to offer online betting to Michigan residents. The 8.4% tax rate will be imposed on all new bookmakers, and the funds will be distributed to the School Aid Fund and similar organizations.

It is expected that the first bookmakers will establish online betting sites by the time March Madness takes place, but the Governor vouched that no special legislation will be used to expedite the process.

Colorado legislators reached a decision on the proposition dubbed the DD proposition, legalizing online sports betting across Colorado. The existing casino operators will most likely become the first bookies in the state, but the Limited Gaming Control Commission of Colorado has received over 50 applications since last November.

The tax rate for all new bookmakers will be 10%. First master licenses are expected before the 1st of May, just in time for the NCAA final tournament and the NBA playoffs.

Illinois is yet another US state that has opened the doors to online betting in 2019. Under the new law, casinos, racetracks, lottery shops and sports venues will be able to offer live and online sports betting.

The applicants for a master license from the Illinois Gaming Board must pay all license fees by July 1, 2020. Those are set at $20 million for online betting operators only. Online betting is expected to become legal in Illinois before the start of the 2020/21 NFL season.

Tennessee is a unique example out of all US states that recently legalized betting. More specifically, the Tennessee Sports Gaming Act, effective since May 2019, allows only online betting operators. Land-based casinos and bookies are not allowed. New bookmakers will have to pay a $750,000 licensing fee and abide by the 20% tax rate. Moreover, all new operators that want to start their businesses in the first half of 2020, must use official league data for live betting purposes.

The Sports Wagering Lottery Amendment Act of 2018 set in motion the process of legalizing online betting and land-based sports betting, under the auspices of the District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board. The DC City Council approved Intralot as the first of possibly many new bookmakers in Washington, D.C., but the Court blocked the deal.

As of December 2019, new applications were received and the only applicant so far is a group led by the British giant William Hill, thats expected to launch online betting in March. All bookies will be taxed 10% of their revenue.

Montana joined the list of states that legalized betting in 2019 with their sports betting law enacted by the states government. All sports betting will be done through Montana Lottery, so it remains unclear whether any other new bookmakers will gain access to the market.

Furthermore, although the first online betting sites are expected to go live in 2020, it is still unknown when exactly that will happen. It is worth noting though that the commission for betting is set at 6%.

The Governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper, signed a bill that classifies sports betting as a Class III gaming activity allowed only on tribal lands and at two tribal casinos. It is still unclear whether any new bookmakers will gain access to the market and whether online betting will be promulgated in the following months; but the indicators of their possible presence are there.

More states are prepping for the introduction of online betting, including Maine, Kentucky, Kansas and many others. Maine has already tried to pass an act that would permit online and land-based betting, called An Act to Ensure Proper Oversight of Sports Betting in the State. Despite the Governor vetoing the bill, the lawmakers plan on reinstating it this year.

In Kentucky, a law that empowers Kentuckys racing commission to introduce sports betting on pro sports was enacted in 2017. The licensing fee is set at $250,000. Additional bills are expected soon before online betting and other forms of betting go live and new bookmakers find their place in the market.

Continued here:
States in the USA that are Set to Regulate Online Betting in 2020 - The Libertarian Republic

As the novel coronavirus spreads across the United States and around the world, there are plenty of places to find sober, informative updates on the pandemic. One source to completely ignore, however, is the braying sports pundit Clay Travis, who on February 24 bravely declared that COVID-19 wouldnt be a big deal and has been just as wrong ever since.

Travis is not an epidemiologist or a medical professional of any kind. Hes a Nashville-based radio host and the mush of a little-watched gambling show on Fox Sports 1, the type of pundit who thinks politics and sports should be segregated unless it provides him an opportunity to rail against the wokeness of verified media members on Twitter, even though his account also bears a blue checkmark. Travis, who started the sports blog Outkick The Coverage in 2011 before he licensed it to Fox Sports in 2015, was never effective at retaining an audiences attention until he decided to take on the grift of being The Last Reasonable Man, someone who uses arrogance to uphold the illusion that everything hes arguing is unequivocally true. Heres an example of what he presents as rational thinking:

This must have sounded more convincing in his head. We dont have to imagine Clays hypothetical, since local news outlets cover car-crash fatalities all the time. Car crashes arent contagious, so it makes no sense to compare them to a disease. Also, plenty of government resources are devoted to telling the public to buckle up, be careful in bad weather, and not text while driving. But pseudo-facts over feelings really click with Traviss audience, some of the most credulous libertarians and social conservatives out there.

Travis isnt the only Reasonable Man whos proved to be particularly useless in the moment. Cosplay libertarian Ben Shapiro whose voice achieves an unprecedented frequency if someone posits that Confederate statues are useless last week asked where all the available COVID-19 tests were, temporarily dropping the whole government bad! act. Embarrassingly thin-skinned New York Times pundit Bret Stephens, whos brought this amorality to the most respected newspaper in the country, is writing about Woody Allen.

That Traviss following is so dim is precisely why its harmful for him to not treat the coronavirus seriously and parse data in bad faith. Last week, he continued to say the pandemic wasnt a big deal, because things in South Korea, where there were 8,412 confirmed cases as of Thursday afternoon, are just swell.

Once again, Travis presents bullshit posturing as common sense. South Korea is improving because theyve taken an aggressive approach to testing, making them free to most citizens. The U.S. has not, and the countrys broken healthcare system has once again been exposed as a sham easily overloaded by those who are sick. Americans would feel a lot less worried if they had easy and free access to tests from day one, as opposed to relying on a private sector that has taken weeks to put together a plan after the Trump administration was caught with its pants down.

Its difficult for someone who doesnt specialize in epidemiology to make assessments on rapidly changing data, and even tougher if youre a yokel who once melted down because an airline wouldnt allow his kid with lice to board. The resulting deluge of unanalyzed information can be overwhelming to the average person, possibly sparking a rush to stock up on distilled water even though theres no indication that the coronavirus will harm our water supply, but thats understandable. Getting anxious about this is a human response. However, its actively harmful to diminish a virus that is on every continent but Antarctica and say theres nothing to fear for anyone under 70, as Travis has. (Again: Wrong.)

While even the Trump administration is advising the public to take this seriously, Travis is intentionally misinterpreting it as panic so that he can appear to be wise and rational. (I asked a Fox Sports flack about Traviss rotten advice and will update if I hear back.) He might have achieved better results when hes pretending that Colin Kaepernick can only make Nikes stock go down and never up, but in this situation, he just looks more foolish with every passing day.

At this point in the pandemic, the only certainty is that washing your hands frequently and staying inside as much as you can will reduce risk for you and everyone around you. Until testing is ramped up, itll be difficult to have a full grasp on how many people have COVID-19: On Wednesday, expanded testing revealed that the number of cases in New York City have doubled; the number of cases in New York state have increased by more than 1,000. Meanwhile, in Italy, which has been hit especially hard by the disease, 475 people died in one day, the largest increase for the country so far. Travis called that a plateau.

Whats particularly aggravating is that if the drastic measures do work, and the outbreak subsides quicker than expected, the logic fetishists will pivot and say everyone was overreacting all along, that they shouldve never canceled March Madness or postponed the NBA season. Thats a small price to pay for not plunging even deeper into a global pandemic and financial crisis, but itll allow the grift to keep going, preying on the most gullible people out there.

See original here:
Fox Sports pundit Clay Travis is spreading the worst possible coronavirus advice - The Outline