Mediaboss Marketing

HELENA This story is the first of a three-part series, profiling the candidates in the May 25 special election for Montanas sole U.S. House seat.

Hi-Line farmer and rancher Mark Wicks, whos never run for political office until now, vaulted into Montanas political consciousness two weeks ago with one of the more memorable closing statements at a candidates debate.

Wicks, vying for Montanas U.S. House seat in a May 25 special election, called his Republican rival Greg Gianforte the luxury car in the race that will end up parked at the country club, and Democratic contender Rob Quist an older, smaller pickup truck that doesnt run too well any more.

And where did Wicks place himself, in the parking lot of political vehicles?

Im the work truck, he said. Im the guy, when youre pulled over on the side of the road, and youre broke down, you want to see that big pickup pull up behind you that has the tow ropes, the chains, the tools everything to get the job done.

Wicks, the Libertarian candidate in the three-way race, is pitching himself as the person that Montana voters can trust to be a pragmatic, independent voice in Congress, for less government but not at the expense of Montana.

When I go back to Washington, nobody but the voters of Montana will be pulling my strings, he said during that same debate in Great Falls on April 29. I will not have the political hierarchy telling me how to vote, or when to vote, and they cant threaten me to pull my campaign funds away. So I can do whats right for Montana.

The 47-year-old Wicks and his family run cattle and hay at an operation north of Inverness, near the U.S.-Canadian border. He grew up on the Hi-Line, about 40 miles west of Havre, delivers mail, and sells fruit in eastern Montana during the summer.

His fellow Libertarians chose Wicks at a delegate convention March 11 in Helena and hes been running a steady but low-key campaign, communicating with voters via Facebook the medium I can afford, he says and traveling the state to visit with TV stations and newspapers and attend various public events.

Wicks says hes garnered way more attention since his appearance with Gianforte and Quist at the debate televised statewide on the Montana Television Networks CBS affiliates.

Still, as a low-budget, third-party candidate, Wicks struggles to compete with the more than $12 million thats been spent so far on the other two major-party candidates.

Wicks says hes trying to appeal to disaffected Republicans and Democrats to consider him as an alternative to the usual politicking.

I feel like the voters are in an abusive relationship, he said on MTNs Face the State last Sunday. They get promised one thing during the campaign, and as soon as (politicians) get back to Washington, were cheated on. This is a chance for Montanans to get out of an abusive relationship.

The Libertarian Party is known for its free-market views and desire for minimal government.

Wicks subscribes to some of these traditional Libertarian views. For example, he believes marijuana should be legalized and taxed, says the U.S. military budget could definitely use some trimming overseas, and says hes probably the biggest supporter of the 2nd Amendment ever running for this office.

He also says legalizing the growing of hemp can be a huge boost for Montanas rural, agricultural economy.

But on many other topics, Wicks is on board with a democratic government using its power to help improve the lives of Montanans and other U.S. citizens.

He says he will never vote to take money out of Social Security or Medicare, and that he opposes privatizing Social Security.

For military veterans, Wicks says they should be granted Medicare health coverage if they cant go to a Veterans Administration hospital or medical center, so they dont have to wait for care.

On prescription drugs, Wicks says U.S. pharmaceutical companies should be required to sell drugs for the same price in the United States, as theyre offering in cheaper overseas markets.

He also would like to simplify U.S. income taxes and reduce corporate tax rates, but says if Americans want government services, they must expect to pay adequate taxes.

Wicks insists that a vote for him is not a wasted vote, because hes the only candidate not influenced by special interests.

He notes that almost 100,000 people voted for Republican Attorney General Tim Fox last November did not vote for Republican Gianforte for governor.

If you come out and vote for me in this election, I win this, and your vote is not lost, he said.

Tomorrow: Democrat Rob Quist.

See original here:
Libertarian Mark Wicks: The work truck candidate for U.S. House ... - KTVH

So when the media cites him as a Republican who's ready to impeach Trump, you're being lied to.

Often its John McCain who provides the media with what they love the most. OK. Second most behind race riots. Im talking about a Republican who will validate the medias storylines by willingly attacking other Republicans, especially if the target of the attack is President Trump.

And the media are not choosy about the legitimacy of the Republican they quote. An R after the name is more than sufficient, even if the person in question isnt a real Republican and doesnt believe what Republicans believe.

So today, theyre quite excited to tell you that, for the first time, a Republican is talking about the possibility of impeaching Trump over the Comey memos.

The only problem is that the person theyre citing is not actually a Republican at all. He is libertarian Ron Paul disciple Justin Amash, and he used to be my congressman.

Sadly, Amash didnt stop being my congressman because he stopped being a congressman entirely. That would have been best for everyone. He stopped being my congressman because I moved out of his district. Now my congressman is horrendously awful UAW stooge Sander Levin, which is repulsive, but at least Levin doesnt pretend to be anything other than what he is.

Amash does. He pretended to be a Republican and got elected to the Michigan Legislature while in his 20s, and took advantage of a divided field to win the 3rd Congressional District primary when Vern Ehlers retired and created an open seat. And now, because hes not really a Republican, hes preening for the medias jubilant eyes and talking up his willingness to impeach the president:

Republicans are beginning to talk of the possibility that President Trump could face impeachment after reports that he pressed ousted FBI Director James Comey to end an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

While Republicans are choosing their words carefully, the fact that impeachment is even being mentioned is notable in Washingtons polarized political environment.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Wednesday said if the reports about Trumps pressure on Comey are true, it would merit impeachment.

Amash spoke a day after The New York Times on Tuesday reported that Trump tried to pressure Comey to stop investigating Flynn.

According to a memo written by Comey after the February meeting, the president told Comey I hope you can let this go.

Asked by The Hill if the details in the memo would merit impeachment if theyre true, Amash replied: Yes.

But everybody gets a fair trial in this country, Amash added as he left a House GOP conference meeting.

Asked by another reporter whether he trusted Comeys word or Trumps, Amash said: I think its pretty clear I have more confidence in Director Comey.

So Amash gave the Hill an opportunity to say Republicans are now open to Trumps impeachment. But thats not true, because one of the so-called Republicans in the story is Amash, who isnt a Republican. The only actual Republican who has signed on to this is Walter Jones of South Carolina, and thats only one.

Amash is not well liked by community leaders in Grand Rapids, which is the largest city in his district and where I lived for 20 years. They would love to get rid of him because his loyalty is the libertarian Borg and not to his district or its needs. A lot of people like Amash because uses social media to explain his votes, which is a perfectly fine thing to do. But just because you explain your priorities doesnt excuse them if theyre wrong.

Conservatives want limited government. Libertarians want no government at all. So conservatives make the mistake of thinking libertarians are their pals, since libertarians will usually vote against spending and programs we dont like. But they also vote against things government needs to do, like looking after national security or enforcing the law.

So why does Amash run as a Republican? Because if he ran as what he really is, he would never win.

I know a lot of conservatives consider themselves libertarian-curious, and think its admirable that libertarians are consistent in their opposition to government. But all that consistency really means is that they dont use their brains. If its government, theyre against it. They dont give any serious thought to whether something is beneficial or useful. They just oppose everything that has to do with the public sector, regardless of its merits.

Because thats what you do when youre part of a cult. Like Justin Amash.

Conservatives should favor limited government, which doesnt try to do too many things, but does the important things very well. That is more or less the philosophy of the Republican Party. It is not the philosophy of Justin Amash. And he is not a Republican who wants to impeach Donald Trump. Because hes not a Republican, his dishonest party identification notwithstanding.

Read this article:
Justin Amash is not a Republican; he's a libertarian Paulbot fraud - Canada Free Press

A Libertarian think tank representing manufacturing firms argues have told President Donald Trump that the Paris Climate Accord is a disadvantage to US companies as it insists on reducing energy consumption while also competing with global companies.

All costs of reducing GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions, whether imposed on the electric generation sector or the oil and gas sectors, are eventually imposed on us, the consumer, argued Industrial Energy Consumers of America in its letter to Trump on Monday. [W]e are often already economically disadvantaged, as compared to global competitors who are subsidized or protected by their governments.

The Washington, DC-based IECA argues that US manufacturing is already 26 percent below 1973 levels, as is its industrial sector. The group argues that when energy costs rise due to GHG reduction mandates, manufacturing companies will move jobs and facilities off shore and could become worse polluters if another country has less stringent regulations.

The group argues that, while California with its climate program appears to show the state is reducing GHG emissions, they are in fact shifting GHG emissions to other states and countries.

The group called it perverse and economically damaging when a state such as California continues to consume manufacturing products such as steel, chemicals, plastics, paper and cement but, instead of manufacturing them in the state, they import them.

California has the dubious rank of top state for air pollution, according to the American Lung Association.

"California has dominated the top 10 list every year. In fact, a California city has been number one every year since the report began in 2000," Will Barrett, senior policy analyst for the American Lung Association in California, told RT. "For ozone pollution, Los Angeles has topped the list the past 17 or 18 reports."

IECA said, while the Paris Climate Accord does not mandate GHG reductions from US manufacturing, the Obama administration committed in 2016 to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. However, China pledged under the agreement to increase GHG emissions by 117 percent by 2030 before starting to reduce emissions, which would put us in a perilous competitive disadvantage.

The letter was issued as Florida researchers reported the effects of climate change on Americas migratory songbirds. Using data from satellites and citizen scientists, the report found nine out of 48 species of birds were unable to return to their northern breeding grounds on time to produce the next generation of fledglings. The decline was observed after looking at data from 2001 to 2013.

That report was published the same day NASA released data showing the Arctic had its second warmest spring in April, with global warming and unusual weather conspiring to shrink sea ice and raise polar temperatures.

If its just natural variability, its a type of natural variability I am not familiar with, said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Theres a lot going on here and I think theres some catchup to do in the research community.

Temperatures were also well above average in the Eastern US, China and across Africa. Only a few patches of the globe were cooler.

The Arctic was warming faster than other regions as greenhouse gas pollution traps heat. The average Arctic temperature last year was 6.3F (3.5C) higher than in 1900. Temperatures elsewhere are rising by about a quarter of that rate.

The reports were released after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signed the Arctic agreement last Thursday that offers a commitment to curb greenhouse gas emissions and to extend scientific cooperation in the Arctic region.

The Arctic agreement between eight circumpolar nations including Russia, Canada and Norway, will make it easier to move equipment, samples and data across borders in the north and facilitate scientific collaboration and sharing.

The treaty made only a passing reference to the Paris Climate Accord by noting entry into force of the pact and called for global action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

Tillersons signing of the document was a surprise. The secretary of state sought to reassure the international Arctic community by saying, Were not going to rush to make a decision, but the American government would make the right decision for the United States.

We are appreciative that each of you has an important point of view, and you should know that we are taking time to understand your concerns, Tillerson told the Arctic Council, according to AP.

See the rest here:
Libertarian think tank to Trump: 'No benefit' in climate agreement - RT

It is interesting and fascinating, inspiring and frustrating to fight for the cause of liberty.

Once involved, it is very easy to let ones mind wander with regard to the barriers we have to our success in life, as well as the barriers to peace. This is a process in which we are all taught in our formative years that the enemies to these highly prized desires are people, groups, countries, political foes, religions, criminals, and other entities that are not supposedly under the control of the people.

The lessons that formed our thinking during the years that we receive formal education are ingrained in most of us, until we experience a key event that rattles our perceptions and we make a different recognition that the infrastructure that was created for the protection of the people is the very same infrastructure that violates peace, blocks our success, sustains violence, stifles our creativity, limits our freedoms, and destroys the spark in many of us to live our lives to the fullest, essentially standing firmly in the way of the pursuit of happiness and a peaceful world.

For many of us, this realization is a serious wake-up call which ignites a spark that inspires us to do something about this travesty. We are awake, but feel alone and frustrated because so many other people with whom we communicate have either not made this realization, or have already recognized the situation and find it insurmountable to change.

So, we fight the current and begin to fight the system. Some of us are so outraged that we make mistakes and the system destroys us. Some are more thoughtful with respect to their communications, plans and goals that they can help to raise awareness and grow the numbers of people that will subscribe to the fight for freedom. Others fight and become weary from a fight that on occasion feels futile.

Speaking from personal experience, I can say that I am prepared for the opposition from those who either strongly support government control, or who simply have not yet made the recognition as to the importance of casting these negative and controlling entities out of the way of self-actualization. What wearies me is the discouragement that I receive from people fighting the same fight as me, because my end goal does not match their end goal.

Having identified government as the culprit in so many violations against the happiness and peace of the individual, I too have been though a deep process of soul searching and analysis of this reality to which I was luxuriously oblivious only a decade ago. I have noticed myriad disastrous and destructive actions promulgated and acted upon by entities of government. It was easy for me to envision a society without government, a world without borders, and a truly free human society it was exhilarating!

Sadly, in my most rational analysis, this utopia cannot and will never exist in a grand scale on a planet in which the vast majority of the inhabitants are indoctrinated with political systems and religious beliefs to the contrary, as well as personal inflictions such as mistrust, fear and paranoia which are the reality of the landscape of life on Earth.

Where there is a void, there will always be a filler of that void. Where there is a weakness, there will be someone taking advantage of that weakness to satisfy whatever their need may be. Governments will always exist. Borders will always exist, unless there is only one government over the entire world, which is the complete antithesis to the growth and happiness of the human condition.

The internal arguments are powerful and with great fervor. Our struggle, the way I see it, is between reality and fantasy. The fantasy is that there will be a sustained period absent any government. The reality is that the entire planet would need to subscribe to this philosophy for it to be possible. While this would be beautiful, it will simply never happen.

If I am to inspire a positive change toward peace, happiness, growth, progress, freedom and individual prosperity, I must be rooted in the real world as it exists today; for if I am to be effective in this goal, I must address the actual challenges we face in order to begin the process of the reduction and removal of these barriers to human success that so many people do not see as barriers.

The road to a resurgence of liberty is a lonely road, and discouragement to the fighters from within our ranks makes this road even lonelier. I have made many friends in this movement, from all spectrums and all viewpoints, and each makes valid and pertinent points.

Today, I appeal to you all for unity within the liberty movement.

How can we be united when we have so many different visions of what the end goal should look like? The immediate answer is simple. We all have a common enemy. That enemy is an over-reaching, violent, oppressive, expensive and destructive government that will never be reduced if we are our own enemies, standing in the way of our progress.

Let us focus on the short term first. Stand together as one in the exposure of the reality of today, and the recognition that each elimination of a barrier to freedom and peace is a victory in its own merit. Let us work together toward each of these smaller goals and experience success together.

If we are to reach a point in which some of us are satisfied with the reductions and want to stop, while others want to keep going that is the time for the debate to begin. The longer we fight amongst ourselves, the longer the establishment will continue to grow itself unfettered. If there is no group that is organized enough to stand in the way of those currently in power, nothing will change and the opportunity to reverse their atrocities will no longer exist. They will simply remove our ability to institute change for the better.

I respectfully call on all of us in the liberty movement: Moderates, radicals, anarchists, and everyone in between to put your battles with each other on hold, so that we all can stand up together against the common enemy that we all have identified.

I look forward to the day when we can once again argue about the end goal because that would mean that we were successful; and the only way we can be successful is to use the strength that we all have as a unified power against tyranny.

Featured image: Libertarian Wing Media

This post was written by Steve Kerbel.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Steve Kerbel is a businessman, author, and former Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States.

Like Loading...

Follow this link:
Steve Kerbel: Libertarians must unite against our common enemy - Being Libertarian

Over the past couple years; the concept of privilege has grown to be a ubiquitous part of the public discourse. Its moved from a topic confined in large part to the ivory towers of academia, to one that is a commonplace aspect of mainstream political and social commentary. Its propagation can be seen in the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, perhaps the most visible (or at least most militant) force for racial identity politics.

Before the last presidential election, I wrote that Gary Johnsons approach to Black Lives Matter, and the issues BLM raises, was the correct one; because, whenever individuals are being targeted simply because they are members of a certain group (be it racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or otherwise), then it becomes a fight that those who love liberty should support.

Racial discrimination is real, and it should be combated. How we choose to combat it, whether through state action or fostering better social understanding amongst our fellow citizens, is another matter. But we should not have a knee-jerk reaction to the notion per se.

Libertarians frequent tendency to belittle the notion of privilege has had the unfortunate consequence of rendering their views tangential to the debate. This has resulted in negative consequences, as in the absence of rigorous interrogation the idea of privilege has come to mean something far broader than the mistreatment of certain historically underserved ethnic groups. It permeates all manner of discourse. Not only is there white privilege now, but also male privilege, straight privilege, cis privilege, thin privilege, and wealth privilege.

Privilege is a slippery concept, because it usually connotes not just an unearned status, but an undeserved one. We would say that status, especially status created by socio-economic means, cannot be called underserved per se.

To borrow a concept from Socrates (if you will permit me to use the philosophy of an old white man to mansplain for a moment) it seems that all the different kinds of privilege pose a ti esti question.

A ti esti or what is it question is a cornerstone of the Socratic method of philosophical inquiry. It essentially posits that one can only really understand a thing, and make judgments about it, when one understands what that thing actually is. Admittedly, Socrates, at least as he is portrayed by Plato in his dialogues, can be awfully pedantic to the point of obtuseness. Yet, the idea that one ought to know what a thing is before making statements about it is a sound one.

After all, how can anyone check their privilege when they do not understand what privilege actually is, let alone what constitutes their privilege in particular?

When people are told to check their privilege, or are instructed in what makes them privileged, there is never a rigorous explanation of what the locus of privilege actually is. It is a question to which the answer is usually assumed, and that is not a good thing. Without recognizing that a whole range of things has now been grouped under a single unhelpful descriptor, the notion of privilege has instead served to position public discourse. Rather than enhancing understanding of how certain groups are treated in a society, the concept of privilege has created a fracturing into tribes.

In reality, the notion of privilege has come to be a weapon used by political activists, principally of the left, to sow divides between segments of society and to create a hierarchy of oppression within a movement.

Oppression (which might be seen as the opposite side of privilege on a notional axis of entitlement) has become a kind of currency within certain groups. This has been thanks to groups like Occupy Wall Street, and its intellectual successors, who fostered the notion of the progressive stack, in which people would be heard on the basis of their level of lack of privilege.

The problem with this sort of thinking is two-fold.

First, it assumes that one can actually define all the kinds of privilege and how they impact individuals. I already explained how that was impossible to do and that no one has ever really tried to do it.

Second, the progressive stack assumes that all the kinds of oppression, once defined, can be added together into a coherent formula. This too is simply leftist black magic, since it is patently obvious no such calculation is possible.

The result is a number of competing formulae, often competing within the minds of individuals. So whether someone who is black, or an immigrant, or trans-gender, or gender queer is more oppressed than another is entirely in the eye of the beholder. That alone should be proof that the concept of privilege, as it is understood, is deeply flawed. Worse still, it is now clear that some activists have started claiming kinds of oppression in order to appear more worthy of a platform. This should be no surprise; given the perverse incentives the progressive stack and the philosophy behind it create.

The problem with discussing privilege as a monolith is that it obscures real social issues from those that are fabricated to win attention. As people who support individual liberty, we should be excited to see people finding new ways of expressing their identities. The truest flowering of freedom is the ability to be ones self without any external authority telling one otherwise.

Yet, we must also stand against the notion that being different automatically means one is oppressed by the white mono-culture, or whatever you want to call it.

We are all different, and society benefits when we embrace those differences.

Trying to turn those differences into weapons to segment the worthy and unworthy is wholly wrong. It is every bit as moronic as the old tools of division like racism and sexism, which the left claims to be fighting against.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:
What is Privilege? The Right Engle - Being Libertarian