Mediaboss Marketing

Mark Stewart is running for president of the United States, but he knows he wont win.

That said, hes officially on the ballot the Vermont Secretary of States office released its official list of presidential primary candidates this week, and Stewarts name is there, along with names like Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, Sanders and Trump.

Im on the ballot to try to make a stink in four states, Stewart said.

Vermont approved his ballot application he submitted a petition with 1,200 names on the list and hell be running in the Democratic primary for sure in New Hampshire and California. Rhode Island is still a hurdle, but hes confident hell make it on that states ballot, too.

Im not doing Connecticut, he said. The ballot access to too hard.

Stewart knows that winning the presidency is unrealistic, but his goal is not actually a victory.

What he wants is for an outsider, for a free-market Libertarian, to voice issues within the primary process, to roll back socialism and try to extinguish the leftist lurch that leaders in the democrat party have.

I dont believe your average Democrat voter really buys into all the big government promises that these televised candidates want, he said.

Stewart is also vying to be the Libertarian Partys choice for vice president, and hopes that running for president will help him be seen as a fighter.

If I have a little cred as a warrior it might help, he said.

But Stewart said his primary goal is to inspire other potential candidates.

I know there will be other candidates for state house seats and maybe even congressional seats that have until now felt stymied, he said. We need more people running for offices. if more candidates are in the mix we get better public servants.

Stewart whose full name is Mark Stewart Greenstein is originally from West Hartford, where he still calls home. He founded and runs an SAT-prep firm, and said he intends to spend no more than $99,900 on his own campaign.

This is not the first time hes run a long-shot campaign for national office. Four years ago, he was on the ballot in Rhode Island, for the sole purpose of beating Hillary Clinton. He received 240 votes, which put him in third place.

The main mission four years ago was not to run for president, but to stop Hillary, he said.

He ran for Senate in New York also for the stated purpose of beating Clinton in 2006. This year, he tried for the 5th Connecticut State Senate District, and garnered 0.5 percent of the electorate, a total of 51 votes.

In 2018 he ran an unsuccessful bid for Connecticut governor, against Ned Lamont. He qualified for the November ballot, but said it did not go well. He received only 0.1 percent of the vote.

In that race, he ran under the Amigo Constitution Party, but Stewart is currently trying to form a new political party he calls EPIC, an acronym for Every Politically Independent Citizen.

The new party will run a convention in August. Stewarts last primary in this election cycle will be when Rhode Islanders go to the polls on April 28, 2020, called the Acela primary. That will give his EPIC party enough time to register any candidates for office who have become disillusioned with the major parties, he said.

As for why hes running as a Democrat, in the Democratic primary, Stewart said its because they need the most help.

They are so wayward in their leadership, he said. They give rise to leftism, which I will define as people who want to take America down.

But the EPIC party will not be choosy when it comes to political affiliation.

This is a beautiful way to offer conservatism as a candidate and not be painted as pro-Trump, he said.

More here:
Yes, there's a candidate for president from Connecticut - CT Insider

You need to write and submit a personal statement as an application if you want to get admission into selective colleges. These college application essays carry a lot of importance. Hence, you should be very serious when writing them. Selective colleges get applications from many bright students who have good grades and scores. They cannot admit all the students that apply. Thus, you have to convince them why they should admit you to their school. The tips in this article will guide you into writing a winning application.

Try as much as you can to avoid repeating yourself in an application essay. Being repetitive does not add any value to your application. Do not waste space and time doing that. Use that space to highlight strengths that will help you stand out from the rest of the applicants. Make sure that whatever you write in your personal statement or application essay does not oppose any other parts of your application. Do not list all your grades and test scores in your application. Be precise and straight to the point when writing to selective colleges.

People write essays to convey a message. People will read and understand the message you are trying to convey if you use the right language. Writing a lot of big words does not help your essay. In fact, it may end up having a negative effect on the whole topic. If you do not understand the meaning of any word, do not use it. If it is a must you use the word, use the dictionary to find out the meaning of the word. Use tools like a thesaurus and check the meaning of the word.

The tone of the words you choose is important too. The words should connect with the audience you are targeting. Do not use words whose tone will make your readers lose interest in the essay. If you want help with your paper, writing services are there to serve you. Contact them and let the best custom writing service write the best essay special for you using the right English vocabulary.

Never be in a rush to answer questions. You may end up giving the wrong answers that will make the admission officers decline your application. Do not give wrong answers to any questions. Take your time, read and understand the questions before you give an answer. If there is any part that you do not understand, ask for assistance from your teachers or friends. Avoid recycling answers even if the question is similar to a question in other applications.

One of the biggest mistakes that people make when writing an essay is that they start with general quotes. In most cases, these quotes are not relevant and appropriate to the topic. To write a successful essay, you need to be specific in your writing. Take time and know which audience you are targeting with your essay. From there, tailor your essay to target this audience. You are always free to find help with your essay. Essay Kitchen writing service will write a perfect paper special for your audience. Contact them and let them take the essay writing task of your hands.

Ask for help from your friends and family when writing the college application. They are the people who know you well. Ask them to read through your essay and edit it. A different set of eyes will help you to rectify any mistakes in the essay. Mates will help to point out the mistakes that you have made in your essay. They can also give you suggestions on how to write a college essay.

Before you start writing the main essay, come up with a couple of drafts that you can read and revise. Read each of the drafts aloud to yourself and see if it makes sense to you. Ask yourself if the essay is interesting and captivating? Is the essay flowing? Try to put yourself in the shoes of the admission personnel and try to see if the essay is convincing. Look for college essay examples from other students. Read through them and see how other students write their applications.

People love reading good stories. Therefore, try to captivate the imagination of the reader by telling a good narrative. Let the story you tell make the reader create a picture of you in their minds. Be creative and tell a story that will stand out from the rest of the applicants.

To get into college, you will have to write a personal statement or an application essay. You do not have to worry about how to write a college essay anymore. Follow the tips in this article and they will assist you to write a winning paper. If you are having trouble with your essay, you can always buy one online.

See original here:
Useful Tips for Writing an Application in College - The Libertarian Republic

December 7th commemorates a day America sets its jaw, rolled up its sleeves, and vowed to counterattack a vicious totalitarian enemy.

In short order this enemy much of its homeland in virtual ashes - found itself degradingly signing an unconditional surrender. This enemy was shocked at the courage and resourcefulness in battle of the sleeping giant they wokeand equally shocked by its magnanimity in victory.

On the other hand, Dec. 17th commemorates a day a whimpering American president surrendered unconditionally to blackmail from the totalitarian enemy 90 miles off our coast.

The Fake News Media, Democrats and libertarians hail Obamas surrender to Raul Castro as an opening! as a diplomatic milestone! In fact it was a humiliating U.S. surrender to terrorist regime that had kidnapped a U.S. hostage named Alan Gross and offered to exchange him upon the freeing and return to Cuba of multi-convicted Castroite spy/terrorist/murderer (of American citizens) Gerardo Hernandez.

We WON THE WAR! exhulted Stalinist dictator Raul Castro on Dec. 20th, 2014.

This blackmail by the mass-murdering Russian satraps on our doorstep gave Obama just the excuse he needed to finally and officially--buddy-up with them, a Democrat goal/craving for decades.

In brief: Obamas Cuba legacy (for the folks who actually bother to study this issue) is simply one of shame, disgrace and humiliation for the USA.And oh! Almost forgotincreased poverty and repression for the Cuban people, for whom Obama (and his lap-dog media) claimed he was acting as benefactor.

In brief, everything your humble servant predicted on Fox News five years ago came to pass.

Not that the prediction required special clairvoyance or education. Practically all of those media-loathed deplorable right-wing Cuban exiles! (i.e. people with actual experience under Castroism) were predicting the identical thing.

Accurate predictions regarding Cuba policy is not rocket science, amigos. Its simply a matter of rejecting practically everything the Fake News Media has reported about the Castros and Che Guevara since 1957.

You see, amigos: Back onDecember 3rd, 2009, Alan Gross, a U.S. citizen distributing cell phones and computer equipment to Cubas Jewish community on contract for the U.S. Agency for International Development, prepared to board a plane homeward at Havanas International Airport. Hovering nearby, but unnoticed by Mr. Gross, were plainclothes officers of Castros KGB-trained secret-police.

As the boarding order loomed, these officers rushed up and grabbed Mr. Gross, who then languished in Castros dungeons until he was ransomed by Obama on Dec. 17th 2014, under the guise of a diplomatic opening.

This ransoming involved treachery on the part of the State Department that rivaled their treachery in the Benghazi scandal/tragedy. Your humble servant detailed this treachery right here at Townhall.

The U.S. ransom was almost unprecedentedly shameful in the annals of U.S. diplomacy. I say almost because it closely mimicked the whimpering Obamas ransom to the snickering Taliban for Bowe Bergdahl. Youll recall the Taliban got five of their terrorists back from Gitmo as the ransom.

But Castro came out of his blackmailing of Obama smelling even rosier than the Taliban. In fact, well before the Stalinist dictator got his spy/murderer back, Castro was already reaping enormous benefits from the Obama Team.

You see, amigos:Promptly upon entering office in 2009Obama began frantically issuing executive orders to circumvent the (so-called) embargo of Cuba and open a financial lifeline from the U.S. (often on the taxpayers dime) to the Castro Family-Crime-Syndicate (grotesquely mislabeled as Cuba by the Fake News Media.)

Here I come to save the day! was a good motto for Obama and his team of whimpering Cuba policy Pajama Boys (Ben Rhodes, particularly) - because that U.S. economic lifeline came just as Venezuelas was drying up.

Despite Deep State (especially Deep State Department) foot-dragging and outright sabotage, the Trump Team recognized and rectified the Democrat racket to extend the terror-sponsoring Castro regime a financial lifeline. The squeals of pain and outrage from Castros (unregistered) U.S. agents provide the best proof.

Whats good for General Motors is good for the U.S. went the old (misquote) of GM CEO Charles Wilson. Well, whatevers BAD in the eyes of the New York Times is GREAT for the U.S. And the New York Times detests Trumps Cuba policy.

Interestingly, similar to Patty Hearst with her kidnappers, Castros kidnap victim Alan Gross seemed to develop (a type of) crush on his kidnappersthough on a different level than Hearsts.

Once free upon Obamas surrender to his kidnappers, Alan Gross quickly joined the ranks of Castros (unregistered) U.S. agents in calling for an end to the (so-called) Cuban embargo.

Oh, I knowI know the liberal/libertarian mantra has it that the embargo is the Castro regimes best friend because it gives them an excuseblahblahblah. Despite this Ana Belen Montes, Carlos and Elsa Alvarez and Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers (all convicted Castroite spies in federal prison today) worked tirelessly to influence U.S. policy AGAINST the embargo while working as secret agents. Interesting no?If that doesnt close the case against the KGB/Castro-crafted and liberal/libertarian-parroted anti-embargo meme I dont know what does.

Alan Gross started chanting the Castro/KGB-crafted and liberal/libertarian-parroted critique of the (so-called) embargo perfectly on cue, almost upon his release.

Afterwards he took to bashing Trumps Cuba policy and even comparing Trump to Fidel Castro! Well, kidnap and Stockholm-syndrome victim Alan Gross was always an Obama backer. But heres a question:

Would a snickering Castro have tried his little kidnapping of a U.S. hostage stunt with Trump in the White House? Not a chance.

Read more:
December Dates that Live in Infamy - Townhall

NEW YORK (WCBS 880) There's an unlikely alliance between the Libertarian and the Green Parties in New York State, both fighting new rules they think might box them out of future elections.

It's not often you see leaders of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party sharing a podium, but thats exactly what happened recently, according to WCBS 880s Steve Burns.

The Libertarian Party is pleased to partner with the Green, said Libertarian Party of New York Chairman Jim Rosenbeck.

Rosenbeck says the new rules set up by the Public Campaign Financing Commission are insulting to New Yorkers.

We find it to be a shameless attempt to limit public debate, he said.

In order to have full ballot status parties need to receive at least 50,000 votes in governor's races.

The new rules raise that threshold to a 130,000 votes, or 2% of total turnout whichever is higher.

Those totals have to be attained every two years instead of every four.

Green Party of New York Co-Chairman Peter Lavenia says they'll likely be knocked off the ballot in the next two years over the changes.

Were looking at this as an assault on democracy, he said.

The two parties are filing a joint lawsuit against the commission.

State lawmakers could reconvene and change the rules, though that prospect is looking increasingly unlikely with a deadline at the end of this week.

Read the original:
Green Party, Libertarian Team Up To Fight New Election Rules - WCBS 880

Falling levels of trust in our public institutions have become the backing track for the demise of the progressive political project and the rise of populist strongmen who promise to take back control.

Government becomes a problem to be solved, a bubble, a swamp of compromised technocrats and bean-counters operating against the interests of hard-working common folk, the quiet Australians whose will for a simple life is constantly being frustrated.

One of the drivers of this collapse has been the impact of technological change on our body politic, the anger-driven echo chambers of social media, the fake news and disinformation, the increasingly sophisticated targeting designed to reinforce what we already think.

Numerous benchmark surveys, including Essentials own, document this decline, which tracks closely the destruction in traditional media models at the expense of these platforms.

But as two reports released in the past week show, when it comes to thinking through the impacts of technology on the future, government leadership is more important than ever.

The first, the governments response to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commissions digital platforms review, is to the point.

On one level the report, initiated as part of the deal to water down the media ownership laws that saw the Nine takeover of Fairfax, is an attempt by media giants to restore the natural order.

But somewhere along the way the ACCC inquiry became more than that. Someone inside the agency seriously put their minds around the existential challenges of Facebook and Google, setting out a detailed framework that would have ended the conceit the social networks did not carry responsibility as publishers.

While limited in scope to exploring the market dominance of the platforms as opposed to the broader social consequences of technological change, the inquiry positioned Australia as a world leader in grappling with the market power of big tech.

The governments response this week may fall short of realising the ACCCs ambition of enforceable standards, opting instead for the sort of voluntary codes that any industry lobbyist yearns, but the intent from the prime minister in launching the report is clear: The rules that exist in the real world need to exist in the digital world.

You can quibble with the ambition, and we have, but when a conservative government invests behind the ACCC to build its capacity to monitor the market operations of the platforms and get to the bottom of their algorithmic marketing model, something interesting is going on.

The second report is, if anything, even more ambitious in its vision of governments need to lead us through profound technological change. The Human Rights Commission discussion paper into AI technology calls for the establishment of rules around the way automated decisions and data-matching develop in Australia.

The report calls for all AI to be subject to scrutiny around its design and impact on users before it is unleashed on to the public, ensuring it complies with existing laws covering both direct and indirect discrimination.

Commissioner Ed Santow argues that human accountability cannot be automated and that facial recognition technology in particular needs to be tested and thought through before it is unleashed on the Australian public. And that this should be the role of a new government body, the AI Safety Commissioner.

In doing so, Santow is challenging some basic tenets of the information economy: that its OK to disrupt, move fast and break things; that the benefits of tech advancement outweigh its cost; and that the role of government is to adapt to change rather than step up and shape it.

Research that Essential has conducted around this report shows Australians are looking for government leadership on the issue, with the majority of the public concerned about the automating of decisions.

Santow argues that placing guardrails around how Australia develops AI will ultimately serve the national interest not just protecting citizens but also developing a uniquely Australian AI that is fair by design and can become a compelling global export.

But to get to that point, government needs to lead: not just being more assertive in taking on the recommendations of its expert bodies, but in the way it too uses its citizens information.

In an era of declining trust in government, it is hardly surprising that the My Health Record program has stalled, with millions of Australians not prepared to share their medical records, especially under a model where entrepreneurs would have been encouraged to access this data to innovate.

More profoundly, the failure of robodebt has reinforced every latent instinct that government is not to be trusted with sensitive information. That the first big government data-matching project was used to chase poor people deemed to have been overpaid says it all.

Imagine the difference in trust dividend if the first application had been to find people who had not claimed benefits they were entitled to and send them a cheque to make good; or to chase down unpaid super; or ensure workers were being paid the right amount of money.

The challenges of rapid technological change provide an opportunity for government to win back public trust, by setting rules that ensure technology serves the public interest and by being a best-practice custodian of our personal information.

As a social democrat thats what I want my government to be doing, regardless of its partisan colours. The alternative is a libertarian free-for-all that will only ensure the disruption, division, distraction and displacement of the times accelerates unabated.

Peter Lewis is executive director of Essential Media and the director of the Centre for Responsible Technology, a new initiative of the Australia Institute.

Read the original here:
The government must make sure technology serves public interest. The alternative is a libertarian free-for-all - The Guardian