Mediaboss Marketing

On the day of President Trumps inauguration, the WhiteHouse.gov website was completely stripped of its previous build (which was archived as Obamas White House on a separate URL) and a new set of Issues were listed on behalf of the Trump administration. Conspicuously absent? LGBT issues, civil liberties, and the environment.

Many Trump apologists made excuses for this, claiming that since the new administration had to start from scratch, it would take time for them to fully flesh out the website. I agree which is why the Issues page was the only completed page upon the new WhiteHouse.gov launch. The rest of the site remained bare, but for a very specific reason, the Issues page was revamped and presented as a complete whole in the new website build. Trump wanted his voters (and the American people at large) to get familiar with the issues that most concerned him, and so it is clear that his transition team had already prepped this particular page of the website ahead of time so that the American people would at least have something to look at upon their new president taking the all important oath.

Considering this, the excuses dont hold any water if Trump truly wanted to say something reassuring to the LGBT people of America, who have publicly expressed fear of this new administration, he would have made sure it was included in his new Issues page. He didnt. Which means hes indifferent toward this demographic at best.

Now, to be fair, Trump did say pro-LGBT things during the campaign, and there was recent news that his administration would continue the lawful protections against active discrimination that Obama had previously put in place for gay and trans employees, etc. And thats all wonderful. I dont actually believe Trump is the boogeyman the liberal press has spun him into. However, the fact that Trump doesnt think LGBT issues are worthy of having a voice in his main advertised agenda is still a problem. It indicates, if nothing else, that our new president is ignorant to the true will of the people. Hundreds of thousands of gays, women, blacks, Latinos, and American-born Muslims are publicly crying out at the moment because they are genuinely afraid of Trump.

And what has Trump done to bring the American people together, considering this? Has he publicly stated on his website that he will continue Obamas LGBT protections? Has he publicly clarified that his recent executive order regarding Muslim immigration is only temporary, and only applies to non-American Muslims? No, he has not. And he should, if he intends on dispelling the ore exaggerated claims about him. Why he has yet to do so is trouble, because it is indicative of a lack of empathy or awareness of the unrest found in large portions of the people he claims to now represent and protect.

Is our president truly this tone deaf? Is he really so unable to understand that a simple addition to his website, a simple White House statement, a single tweet., etc. could start to make the difference and ebb peoples fears? Who cares if many of said fears were kicked up by the media unjustly? That ship has sailed, and the currently reality is one of fear, paranoia, and violence. If President Trump were truly presidential, he would be making his positions much more clear, and he would be reaching out to all Americans (not just in a general statement, but in direct addresses to specific demographics) to assure them that he is going to preserve their rights as well as the rights of their straight, male, white fellow citizens. Equally. With liberty and justice for all.

Until the President can do that, which is now warranted considering the hostile climate that has been kicked up by partisan fear mongering and demagoguery, then he has not earned the privilege of actually being referred to as presidential. Because being president is more than just the actions; it is also the words. Kennedy and Reagan spoke to their citizens like brothers and sisters is a common quest for liberty and greatness; Trump trashes people on Twitter for making harmless jabs at his expense. The bar has fallen significantly. And we are likely going to spiral further into chaotic unrest and heterogeneity as a result.

Brace for impact.

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

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

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:
Why Trump's First Few Actions Already Matter - Being Libertarian

The Democrats have been decimated nationally and now face a national government controlled, in all three branches, by Republicans. In response, quite cynically, theres been a revival of a certain states rights mentality among liberals.

In sanctuary cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Oakland, mayors have boldly stated that they will not cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport undocumented denizens. Like Loretta Lynch, under Barack Obama, Trump has said he will cut off federal funds to cities that do not submit to federal will.

Democrat Governors like Dan Malloy and Jerry Brown are saying they will challenge federal laws, and progressive groups are looking to the states more and more to get what they want.

I may not like a large chunk of the liberal agenda but, if there are other folks who want to help shift the field of battle from the national to the local level, Ill take it.

Since FDR, progressives and liberals have pushed for an ever-greater centralization of authority; but in the age of Trump, it will be Republicans who reap what Democrats have sown, and liberals are cowering.

Libertarians are the truest champions of political decentralization, and if liberals want to serve our ends we should let them.

If the centralization of authority that liberals have pushed for over the decades is still around after theyve lost power; then, by that logic, the decentralization they cynically retreat to, when theyve lost elections, can remain when they inevitably get back into power only to find that power has been oh-so-beautifully diminished.

We can use liberal angst against big government nationalistic Republicans today, and use the fruits of liberal rage against incumbent progressives tomorrow.

We libertarians should use the changing battlefield to our advantage. We should be part of the push to shift politics to local and state levels, and then use that opportunity to seek power at lower-level offices that are more easily influenced by insurgent movements like ours.

Libertarianism has often been described as the perpetual ideology of the opposition in the United States, and federalism doubly so. As the biggest advocates for the nationalization of politics suffer the effects of their disastrous ideology, lets take the opportunity to prevent them from being able to do much damage down the line.

Jacob Linker is a Campus Coordinator with Students For Liberty and the State Chair of Young Americans for Liberty in his state.

Like Loading...

See the article here:
Progressives are Retreating to Federalism: Ironic, but an Opportunity - Being Libertarian

The Liberty Conservative

Layin The Sarwark Down: Nullification Expert Mike Maharrey Pile-Drives Libertarian Chair On States' Rights The Liberty Conservative One of the many contentious issues in the libertarian community is the notion of States' Rights. There is confusion over what the term means and how it pertains to the liberty movement as a whole. A recent exchange between Mike Maharrey, ...

See the original post here:
Layin The Sarwark Down: Nullification Expert Mike Maharrey Pile-Drives Libertarian Chair On States' Rights - The Liberty Conservative

The Libertarian Party, and fellow plaintiffs, won a victory in federal court this week in the case of Level the Playing Field v. FEC. (The full background of the case can be read from reporting here when it was first assigned its day in court and when the oral arguments occurred.)

Gary Johnson Facebook

To quote from my previous reporting summing up what was at issue in the lawsuit, which while technically against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is ultimately targeting the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for locking out third parties while pretending to be nonpartisan, the L.P. and its co-plaintiffs claim that:

the CPD has always been a deliberate duopoly for the two major parties and has "been violating FECA and FEC regulations limiting debate-sponsoring organizations' ability to use corporate funds to finance their activities" since its efforts are not truly "nonpartisan."

The suit accuses the FEC of "refus[ing] to enforce the law and ignored virtually all of this evidence in conclusorily dismissing the complaints even though there is plainly reason to believe that the CPD is violating FECA...."...

"The Court should...direct the FEC to do its job, which is to enforce the law and put an end to the CPD's biased, anti-democratic, and fundamentally corrupt and exclusionary polling rule."

Judge Tayna Chutkan in U.S. District Court for D.C. agreed with the L.P. and others that the FEC was derelict in its duties when it blithely refused to act on the those complaints about the CPD.

Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").... in dismissing two administrative complaints regarding the CPD and in denying a petition to engage in rulemaking to change the FEC's regulations regarding debate staging organizations.

Judge Chutkan explains how CPD's operations should be affected by the FEC and its enforcement of election finance law:

The debate staging regulation...acts as an exemption to the general ban on corporate contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political campaigns or candidates. To prevent debate staging organizations such as the CPD from operating as conduits for corporate contributions made to benefit only one or two candidates from the Democratic and Republican partiesvia the much-watched prime-time debatesthe regulations require these organizations to (1) be nonpartisan, (2) not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or campaigns, and (3) use pre-established, objective criteria.

If a debate staging organization fails to comply with the regulations, such as failing to use objective criteria in determining which candidates participate in its debates, then the value of the debate is actually a contribution or expenditure made to the participating political campaigns in violation of the Act.

The Act provides that any person who believes a violation of the Act has occurred may file an administrative complaint with the FEC...

The L.P. and its co-plaintiffs filed such a complaint in September 2014, as well as "a Petition for Rulemaking with the FEC [that] asked the FEC...to specifically bar debate staging organizations from using a polling threshold as the sole criterion for accessing general election presidential and vice-presidential debates."

They were not satisfied with the FEC's reaction, leading to the current lawsuit "challenging the dismissal of their administrative complaint...and the agency's decision not to engage in rulemaking" about the debate threshold.

Judge Chutkan agrees that the FEC did a shoddy and careless job in actually considering and reacting to the arguments and evidence the L.P. and others presented about the potential partisanship of CPD, and thus:

the court cannot defer to the FEC's analysis and further concludes that the FEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law when it determined that the CPD did not endorse, support, or oppose political parties in the 2012 election....On remand, the FEC is ORDERED to articulate its analysis in determining whether the CPD endorsed, supported, or opposed political parties or candidates....

....the FEC must demonstrate how it considered the evidence, particularly, but not necessarily limited to, the newly-submitted evidence of partisanship and political donations and the expert analyses regarding fundraising and polling.

As for the argument that the CPD's 15 percent polling requirement for third party access is not properly objective and is in fact clearly designed to privilege major parties, Judge Chutkan:

GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion....as to whether the FEC's analysis of the criterion's objectivity was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. While the court cannot and does not mandate that the FEC reach a different conclusion on remand, the court notes that the weight of Plaintiffs' evidence is substantial, and the FEC must demonstrate that it actually considered the full scope of this evidence, including the CPD chairmen's and directors' partisan political activity and the expert reports, as well as explain how and why it rejected this evidence in deciding that the CPD's polling requirement is an objective criterion

Judge Chutkan spells out that the L.P. and its co-plaintiffs:

clearly argued, and attempts to establish with significant evidence, that in presidential elections CPD's polling threshold is being used subjectively to exclude independent and third-party candidates, which has the effect of allowing corporations to channel money to the CPD's expenditures to the C campaigns they would be prohibited from giving the campaigns directly.

It further argued and presented evidence that polling thresholds are particularly unreliable and susceptible to this type of subjective use at the presidential level, undermining the FEC's stated goal of using "objective criteria to avoid the real or apparent potential for a quid pro quo, and to ensure the integrity and fairness of the process." In its Notice, the FEC brushed these arguments aside....

Judge Chutkan is thus demanding the FEC do a better job actually grappling with those arguments. This does not mean that the CPD is on the ropes or will somehow instantly be required to either give up its firewall against third parties or stop taking in the corporate bucks.

But it does mean the FEC is going to have to come up with convincing reasons why the CPD isn't bipartisan rather than nonpartisan and why the CPD's debate inclusion criteria are fair and objective and not partisan. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Via the always indispensable Ballot Access News.

Read more here:
Libertarian Party Gets Victory in Suit Aimed at the Partisanship of Commission on Presidential Debates - Reason (blog)

AUGUSTA, Maine The creation story of the Libertarian Party in Maine, which has had more twists and turns than a mystery novel, is now moving into the hands of the Legislature, which will consider a bill this year that would grant permanent party status.

Lets catch up on the background. Through a nonprofit, Libertarians launched a drive in early 2015 to collect 5,000 registrants, the first step in becoming a party. They submitted 6,482 names but Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap rejected nearly 2,000 of them in December 2015 because they could not be verified as registered Maine voters, so all were unenrolled from the party by the state and became independents.

The decision was upheld in U.S. District Court in April 2015 but the Libertarians appealed and the ruling was reversed by the same court a month later, a major victory for the Libertarians. But their fight was far from over.

To achieve permanent party status, they needed at least 10,000 registered Libertarians to vote in November 2016, but they fell far short, with Dunlap spokeswoman Kristen Muszynski saying Wednesday that there are 5,616 enrolled Libertarians.

Now, the party and its attorney have brokered a deal that could lead to permanent party status. Libertarian Chairman Chris Lyons said the deal, which involves the presentation of LD 295 to the Legislature, could keep the issue from going back to court for more arguments about how Maines system for creating a new party is so hard its unconstitutional. That was the crux of the partys legal arguments the first time around.

The bill was referred to the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee on Tuesday and hasnt been scheduled for a public hearing. There is also a second bill, which has not yet been drafted, coming from the Dunlaps office to make broader changes to the qualification process.

Were going to continue to be an official party, Lyons said on Wednesday. If either of those bills get hacked up or not accepted, basically were going right back to court.

Theres some irony here. LD 295 basically lets the Libertarians fall back on a previous law that grants party status because their 2016 presidential candidate in this case Gary Johnson received more than 5 percent of the vote in Maine. Because the Libertarians were in the qualifying process, they faced the more rigorous 10,000-vote threshold.

Why does it matter?

Having a fourth political party in Maine could mean a great deal if it gains any traction. Even one or two Libertarians in a closely divided Legislature could change the political dynamic in Maine, which raises the question: Will Republicans and Democrats vote for this?

The rest is here:
Maine Libertarians' bid for party status hits a snag - Bangor Daily News