Mediaboss Marketing

Colorado's Libertarian Party has agreed with state Republicans to stay out of competitive races in next year's election where a right-leaning, third-party candidate could be a spoiler, the chairs of both parties announced Tuesday.

Colorado GOP Chairman Dave Williams said the agreement he negotiated with Hannah Goodman, his Libertarian counterpart, will boost the chances of Republicans winning crucial 2024 legislative and congressional races.

Williams said in a statement that he hopes the unprecedented move will "ensure that these races are not spoiled by a third-party candidate so that together we can break the stranglehold radical Democrats have over our state."

Said Goodman, in a letter addressed to Williams released by the Colorado GOP:"We would prefer to work with you, and not against you, to support the Colorado that your voters believe they are supporting. We are committed to working with you to end their one-party rule here in Colorado."

Williams told Colorado Politics that the agreement will only affect what he described as competitive races, where a Libertarian candidate's votes might make a difference.

Republicans in Colorado have long complained that Libertarian nominees siphon off votes from GOP candidates, sometimes allowing Democratic nominees to win with a plurality. Libertarians, however, have also long maintained that their candidates aren't spoilers and caution Republicans against counting on the votes their nominees receive.

The Libertarian Party is the largest of Colorado's officially recognized minor political parties, with 39,830 active, registered members as of June 1. Although the party's members account for just 1% of the state's 3.8 million registered, its nominees routinely garner 2-3% of the vote, enough to swing the results in tight races.

Williams cited Democrat Yadira Caraveo's 0.7 percentage point win last year over Republican Barb Kirkmeyer in Colorado's new 8th Congressional District, where Libertarian nominee Richard Ward took nearly 4% of the vote far more than Caraveo's razor-thin margin.

Democrats swept the ballot in Colorado last year, winning every statewide race and five of the eight congressional seats while increasing the party's majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.

"We must seek new opportunities to build coalitions that will help restore balance back to Colorado, and this new partnership is a critical first step if we are going to win in 2024," Williams said.

In the letter, Goodman outlined the agreement, which requires that Republican nominees pass a loosely defined test involving a commitment to "liberty."

"We are calling upon the Republican Party to take our goals and objectives into serious consideration and run strong liberty minded, anti-establishment candidates going forward," Goodman wrote. "If the Republican Party runs candidates who support individual liberties, we will not run competing candidates in those races."

Added Goodman: "Furthermore, we reserve the right to run our candidates if you choose not to put forth strong liberty candidates."

Williams acknowledged that Republicans can't count on the Libertarians standing down in targeted races if the party nominates just anyone.

"They are not looking for the perfect candidate, but they are making clear that our party needs more nominees who will fight for limited-government in Denver and Washington D.C.," he said in an email to supporters.

He elaborated on how possible scenarios might play out in a text message to Colorado Politics.

"At a minimum, the Libertarians will make it known to Colorado Republicans if a primary candidate is acceptable or not," Williams said. "For example, if Joe ODea runs in CD8, they will object and make it known that they prefer their own nominee in the general election."

O'Dea, the GOP's unsuccessful 2022 U.S. Senate nominee, has been floated as a potential challenger to Caraveo, though he doesn't live in the district. In last year's election, numerous leading Republicans, including former state Rep. Ron Hanks, who lost the primary to O'Dea, withheld their support from the Republican nominee over his positions on abortion and other issues.

Williams told Colorado Politics that he forwarded the agreement to the National Republican Congressional Committee and minority leaders in the state House and Senate. He added that the state GOP "will also act as a liaison" with the groups to "express the Libertarian Partys thoughts on the field of candidates.

Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who routinely describes himself as small-l libertarian-leaning, mocked the announcement in a Twitter post.

"And if you run more pro-liberty candidates who support a womans right to choose, the freedom to marry who you love, reducing the income tax, private property rights to build housing on your own land, and legal cannabis and psilocybin small businesses then maybe you can start calling your nominees Democrats," Polis wrote.

Dick Wadhams, a Republican poltiical consultant and former state GOP chairman, told Colorado Politics he applauded Williams for having the discussion but was skeptical about any long-term benefits the agreement might yield.

"The Libertarian chairwoman said they will not oppose Republicans who support individual liberties, but that's a pretty broad definition," Wadhams said. "You never know where they're going to come down on any issues. They'reall over the map on various issues."

Wadhamsadded that Williams might not be the best arbiter of what constitutes a goodRepublican who deserves a shot without a third-party spoiler.

"After watching Williams attack people like Congressman Doug Lamborn and former Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers in the last couple weeks, count me as somewhat leery about him deciding on his own that a Republican candidate does not support individual liberties," Wadhams said.

"It's nice he's spending time on this, but it doesn't go to what really ails the Colorado Republican Party, which is Donald Trump and people who refuse to acknowledgethe cold hard reality that Donald Trump has defined the last four election cycles in Colorado for Colorado Republicans."

Colorado Democrat Party Chairman Shad Murib dismissed the pact between his Republican and Libertarian counterparts in a text message to Colorado Politics.

"The Colorado Republican Partys problem is not Libertarians spoiling elections for them their problem is that their platform is opposed by the vast majority of Colorado voters," Murib said. "If their path to victory is to embrace folks who are even more extreme than them, Id remind them that two wrongs dont make a right."

Follow this link:
Colorado Libertarians ink pact with state Republicans to stand down next year in crucial races - coloradopolitics.com

ANKARA

President Recep Tayyip Erdoan has expressed his desire to liberate Trkiye from its current constitution, which he claims is a remnant of a coup dtat, and underlined the need for a civilian, libertarian and inclusive constitution that will be embraced by all segments of Turkish society.

We, together, want to liberate our country from its current constitution, which is the product of a coup dtat. We want our journey in the second century of our republic to be guided by a civilian, libertarian and inclusive constitution that is embraced by all segments of the society, Erdoan said in his address following the cabinet meeting at the presidential complex on June 14.

The president acknowledged the results of the May elections, stating that the introduction of the presidential system of government will bring numerous benefits in the coming years.

According to Erdoan, the elections have placed Trkiye in a new league, creating a political atmosphere conducive to achieving a civilian constitution. He highlighted the strength of Turkish democracy, stating that the nation is now capable of removing the remaining shackles that hinder progress.

The president called for unity and collaboration with the ruling Peoples Alliance to draft a new constitution that reflects the aspirations of all Turkish citizens. The new vision guided by a civilian, libertarian and inclusive constitution aims to lead Trkiye into its second century with confidence and progress, he said.

He pledged to accelerate progress towards national goals, realize long-held dreams more quickly, implement projects and plans within shorter timeframes, overcome challenges and setbacks more easily and increase services that resonate with citizens.

Erdoan also emphasized a more determined fight against both domestic and international terrorist organizations, a bolder defense of Trkiyes rights on the global stage, and a stronger commitment to regional peace and stability. He reiterated his dedication to democracy, rights and freedoms, aiming to elevate the country to the level of contemporary civilizations.

Trkiye is expanding area of influence beyond its borders, the president said, noting that the recent elections garnered significant attention worldwide.

He also highlighted the admiration and affection millions of people have for the country, with many envisioning their future connected to the nation.

Erdoan expressed satisfaction with the support and interest shown during his inauguration and subsequent foreign visits.

Turkey,

The rest is here:
Erdoan calls for civilian, libertarian constitution - Trkiye News - Hurriyet Daily News

For many years, libertarian economists, housing experts, and legal scholars have been at the forefront of efforts to oppose exclusionary zoning. Regulations restricting the type of housing property owners can build on their land severely constrain property rights and also cause immense economic and social harm by excluding millions of people from areas where they could otherwise find better job and educational opportunities. Libertarian legal scholar Bernard Siegan was a pioneer critic of zoning as far back as the 1970s, and other libertarian-leaning experts have made more recent major contributions to this literature, most notably those of Harvard economist Edward Glaeser. Few ideas are as central to libertarianism as the notion that private property owners have a strong presumptive right to use their land as they see fit, subject only to those restrictions they voluntarily accept.

In a recent Reason article, Robert Poole challenges the standard libertarian view on these issues by offering a defense of single-family zoning. The latter is one of the most severely restrictive types of government-imposed land-use constraints. It bars a vast range of housing options, including duplexes, quads, apartment buildings, and much else. Poole's defense of single-family zoning founders in a morass of logical and factual errors. Here is an excerpt from it:

When zoning laws began to proliferate in the 1920s, they were a newly imposed restriction on what homeowners could do with their properties. In those days, most people lived in long-established communities in cities. Today, after 70 years of suburbanization following World War II, the large majority of homeowners bought their homes in suburbs built in response to market demand for single-family living. Local governments (typically county governments outside the main city) responded to the kind of housing the developers wanted to create to meet the growing single-family market demand.

In effect, postwar single-family zoning represented an agreement under which homebuyers accepted restrictions on other types of uses in their neighborhood in order to be protected from negative externalities that neighbors might create, without the protection of the covenant provided by single-family zoning.

It is simply not true that single-family zoning restrictions were a response to "market demand" that property owners voluntarily agreed to. In reality, these rules wereand areimposed by government coercion, including on many property owners who would have preferred to build multi-family housing on their land. At best, one can say that these policies met a "demand" that some property owners had for imposing constraints on others.

By that standard, almost any form of government intervention can be defended as a response to "market demand." Protectionism is a response to "market demand" from producers who seek to be free of foreign competition. Price controls are a response to "market demand" for lower prices. Even socialism can be justified as a response to "market demand" from those who prefer a collectivist society.

In his description of the historical origins of single-family zoning, Poole also omits the large role of racism. In many places, such policies were enacted as a seemingly neutral tool for excluding blacks and other racial minorities, after the Supreme Court invalidated explicit racial discrimination in zoning in 1917.

It is true that single-family zoning can sometimes protect homeowners against externalities. For example, some affluent homeowners dislike the aesthetics of mixed-use housing, and others may prefer to live in an area with few or no working or lower-middle class residents. Others simply want to avoid changes to the "character" of their neighborhood. But exclusionary zoning creates far larger negative externalities than it prevents, most notably by excluding millions of people from housing and job opportunities, thereby also greatly reducing economic growth and innovation. Moreover, even many current homeowners in areas with zoning restrictions stand to benefit from their abolition.

Poole also tries to defend single-family zoning restrictions by claiming that they are a kind of "contract":

To abolish single-family zoning is a violation of the contract between a municipality and its single-family homeowners. They selected the neighborhood and the house based on the protections offered by prevailing zoning.

The simple answer to this argument is that no such "contract" exists. A true contract arises through the voluntary agreement of the parties. By contrast, zoning restrictions are imposed by governments on all property owners in a given area, regardless of whether they agree to it or not.

It is true that, after the initial coercive imposition of zoning, some of those who buy property in the area may do so in part because they like the restrictions. But if that qualifies as a "contract" that future government policy is morally bound to respect, the same goes for virtually any other type of coercive government policy that some people have come to rely on.

We could equally say that protectionism is a "contract" between the government and protected industries. After all, many investors and workers may have "selected" that industry "based on the protections offered by prevailing" trade restrictions. Similarly, abolishing racial segregation violated the "contract" between the government and white racists who "selected" segregated neighborhoods "based on the protections offered by prevailing" segregation laws.

Libertarian economist David Henderson offers a similar critique of Poole's argument here. As he points out, "[w]henever government gets rid of restrictive regulations, people who gained from those regulations will lose. But that doesn't mean that the government violated a contract."

There may be some situations where completely abolishing unjust government policies that violate libertarian principles would be wrong, because of reliance interests. The most compelling examples are cases where people rely on welfare programs, without which they might be reduced to severe poverty. If, someday, libertarians succeed in abolishing Social Security, there will be a strong case for exempting the elderly poor who have come to rely on that program, and have no other way to support themselves. But few if any beneficiaries of single-family zoning restrictions are likely to suffer any comparably terrible privation if those restrictions are abolished.

In another part of his article, Poole analogizes single-family zoning to private land-use restrictions, such as private planned communities. This analogy (more often made by left-wing critics of private communities), is badly flawed for reasons I summarized here. The most important distinction is that, unlike zoning, private land-use rules really are contracts that only bind those landowners who have voluntarily consented to them:

The requirement of unanimous consent ensures that [private] restrictions rarely, if ever, violate owners' property rights. It also makes it unlikely that HOAs and other private communities can significantly restrict mobility in the way zoning restrictions do. It is nearly impossible for an HOA with severe restrictions on building to take over a vast area, such as a major metropolitan area or even a good-size suburb. The city of Houston, which has no zoning, but gives relatively free rein to HOAs, is an excellent case in point. The extensive presence of HOAs hasn't prevented Houston from building large amounts of new housing, and featuring far lower housing costs than cities with zoning restrictions. Indeed, the city's openness to consensual private land-use restrictions may even have facilitated new housing construction by allowing those who really want restrictions to create small enclaves for themselves instead of imposing those rules on everyone else.

In his article, Poole rightly praises Houston's policies. But he fails to recognize the fundamental distinction between them and government-mandated single-family zoning.

Poole claims that single-family zoning restrictions do not significantly constrain new housing construction, and that the best way to address the housing crisis is to focus on lifting restrictions on the development of previously undeveloped land. I agree the latter should be abolished. But exclusionary zoning rules are also a major constraint on housing construction. In suggesting otherwise, Poole ignores a vast amount of research compiled by economists and land-use across the political spectrum. Recent evidence suggests that the effects are even larger than previously thought.

Allowing more development in currently undeveloped areas is not an adequate substitute for zoning reform. Much of the benefit of the latter comes from increasing the availability of housing in places where there are important job and educational opportunities. Most undeveloped land is relatively further away from such locations, and building more housing there offers fewer benefits than allowing increased construction close to major centers of commercial and social interaction.

Finally, Poole complains that "preemption of local government policy violates basic principles of limited government: that any government action should be carried out at the lowest possible level of government." I always thought that one of the most basic principles of limited government is that private property owners should be allowed to decide for themselves what they can build on their own land. Allowing them to do that actually promotes greater diversity and decentralization of power than leaving that authority in the hands of local government.

Poole's article also contains a number of other errors. For example, it is not true that California "recently [became] the first state to enact legislation that invalidates single-family zoning, as an effort to increase housing supply." Oregon enacted a state-wide ban on single-family zoning in 2019 (exempting only communities with fewer than 10,000 residents). SB 9, the California law Poole refers to, is less far-reaching. It allows owners of property in areas with single-family zoning to build additional housing units, but only if they meet a variety of restrictive criteria. SB 9 is an important step in the right direction, but does not completely abolish single-family zoning.

In sum, Poole's defense of single-family zoning restrictions is at odds with libertarian principles. More importantly, it's based on weak arguments that should be rejected regardless of their ideological valence.

Read more here:
A Flawed Attempt at a Libertarian Defense of Exclusionary Zoning - Reason

Today is June 14, 2023 and here's what you need to know:

U.S. Rep. Ken Buck said on Tuesday that he won't support Donald Trump's reelection if his fellow Republican is found guilty on felony charges alleging the former president illegally kept classified documents and blocked government efforts to retrieve them.

"As I said, he's innocent until proven guilty," Buck, a Windsor Republican and former federal and state prosecutor,told CNN's Dana Bash."After the trial, if he is convicted of these charges of mishandling this information, of knowingly concealing his actions, I don't think I certainly won't support a convicted felon for the White House."

Trump pleaded not guilty to dozens of felony countsat a federal courthouse in Miamishortly after Buck spoke with Bash. Trump is thefirst former presidentto be charged with federal crimes.Trump has insisted he did nothing wrong and called the charges political persecution.

During an appearance Tuesday afternoon on the cable network, Buck called the allegations made by the Department of Justice "very serious" and told Bash that Trump's mounting criminal cases have "got to be distracting" to voters, potentially endangering Republican chances of winning the presidency next year.

Buck noted several times that prosecutors still have to prove their case in court but expressed concern about the gravity of the allegations.

Colorado's Libertarian Party has agreed with state Republicans to stay out of competitive races in next year's election where a right-leaning, third-party candidate could be a spoiler, the chairs of both parties announced Tuesday.

Colorado GOP Chairman Dave Williams said the agreement he negotiated with Hannah Goodman, his Libertarian counterpart, will boost the chances of Republicans winning crucial 2024 legislative and congressional races.

Williams said in a statement that he hopes the unprecedented move will "ensure that these races are not spoiled by a third-party candidate so that together we can break the stranglehold radical Democrats have over our state."

Said Goodman, in a letter addressed to Williams released by the Colorado GOP:"We would prefer to work with you, and not against you, to support the Colorado that your voters believe they are supporting. We are committed to working with you to end their one-party rule here in Colorado."

Williams told Colorado Politics that the agreement will only affect what he described as competitive races, where a Libertarian candidate's votes might make a difference.

Republicans in Colorado have long complained that Libertarian nominees siphon off votes from GOP candidates, sometimes allowing Democratic nominees to win with a plurality. Libertarians, however, have also long maintained that their candidates aren't spoilers and caution Republicans against counting on the votes their nominees receive.

Democrat Obi Ezeadi, a member of the Westminster City Council, on Tuesday announced that he's formally launching a campaign for the open Senate District 19 currently represented by term-limited state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat.

Ezeadi, the 38-year-old son of Nigerian immigrants and only the second Black councilor elected in the suburban city's history, said he's running to "elevate all the voices" in the northwest metro district.

"As a first-generation American, I firmly believe that leadership and greatness have no bounds, and it is crucial for the Colorado Democratic Party to have representatives with diverse lived experiences who understand the struggles of all constituents. I am running to champion your freedoms the freedom to receive a quality education, the freedom to love, and the freedom to ensure your voice matters," Ezeadi said in a statement.

While there is still a lot of work to be done in Westminster, and Im hungry to do it, Im looking forward to expanding my reach to encompass all of District 19. That way, I can help even more residents to achieve the access, resources, and engagement that they deserve from their elected officials."

The Democratic-leaning district covers parts of Arvada and Westminster. Zenzinger won reelection in 2020 under the district's old boundaries by a wide margin, defeating Republican Lynn Gerber by nearly 20 percentage points.

The Denver City Council on Monday approved purchasing $1.8 million worth of meals to feed people at the citys emergency shelters. The orders include $800,000 in meals from FED LLC, $500,000 from Snap Colorado, and $500,000 in meals from Michaels of Denver Catering.

A city spokesman said the funding for meals from Snap Colorado and Michaels of Denver Catering is part of the citys migrant response and is paid for from the Denver Department of Human Services budget. The funding is in addition to the $11 million the council approved on June 6 for the citys response.

The city has received more than 11,000 immigrants from South and Central America since December, spending $17 million on the response.

Denver has been reimbursed roughly 20% of those costs.

Americans on the right and the left have a lot more in common than they might think including their strong distrust of each other.

A survey published on Wednesday finds that when asked about core values including fairness, compassion and personal responsibility, about nine in 10 Democrats and Republicans agreed they were very or extremely important. Yet only about a third of either group said they believed the same was true for the opposing party.

The results of the survey, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago and the nonprofit group Starts With Us, reveal a stark truth at the source of the polarization that hasa powerful grip on American politics: While most Americans agree on the core principles underlying American democracy, they no longer recognize that the other side also holds those values.

This is a hidden opportunity for Americans to reestablish a sense of shared values, said Tom Fishman, chief executive at Starts With Us, a nonpartisan organization that works to bridge political polarization. Americans from both parties need to understand that they still share common values, he said, and to recognize their misconceptions about the opposing party.

See the original post here:
Buck won't back a convicted Trump, Colorado Libertarians to yield to ... - coloradopolitics.com

Last month during the Libertarian Party of Texas second quarterly State Legislative Executive Committee meeting, I became a lifetime member. Libertarian Party of Texas Treasurer Kate Prather said to every State Legislative Executive Committee member present during the treasurers report that when someone becomes a lifetime member to the state party, it helps out the party more. I quickly went onto my phone and donated $1,836 the official lifetime membership fee. During the treasurers reports question and answer session, I announced the Libertarian Party of Texas has another lifetime member in the books.

Interesting enough, its been a little over 10 years since I joined the Libertarian Party, and almost two years since I became a lifetime member of the national Libertarian Party which costs $1,500 as an early 50th birthday gift. I had the funds on me to become a lifetime member of Libertarian Party of Texas and I was one of many State Legislative Executive Committee members who voted for it when it was a business item back in August 2021.

Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

kAmq6:?8 2 =:76E:>6 >6>36C ?@E @?=J D9@HD E92E E96J 92G6 4@>>:EE65 E@ 36:?8 2 >6>36C @7 E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJ @7 %6I2D 7@C =:76 2?5 H:== 4@?E:?F6 E@ G@E6[ G@=F?E66C 2?5 5@?2E6 😕 DFAA@CE @7 @FC A2CEJ 2?5 @FC 42?5:52E6D[ E96J 2=D@ C646:G6 46CE2:? 36?67:ED DF49 2D 2 4@>>6>@C2E:G6 4@:?[ C64@8?:E:@?[ 2446DD E@ DA64:2= 6G6?ED 2?5 5:D4@F?ED[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 {:76E:>6 |6>36CD A286 @? {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJ @7 %6I2D H63D:E6] ~? E96 52J x 3642>6 2 =:76E:>6 >6>36C[ x C646:G65 2 DA64:2==J 56D:8?65 D:=G6C 4@:?[ 2?5 2EE6?565 >J 7:CDE =:76E:>6 >6>36C >66E:?8 H96C6 @E96C >6>36CD 5:D4FDD A@DD:3=6 6G6?ED E92E :?G@=G6 7F?5C2:D:?8 7@C E96 A2CEJ 2E 7FEFC6 $E2E6 {68:D=2E:G6 tI64FE:G6 r@>>:EE66 >66E:?8 6G6?ED 2D H6== 2D E96 DE2E6 4@?G6?E:@?D]k^Am

kAm~7 4@FCD6[ 56DA:E6 5@?2E:?8 2 967EJ S`[gbe E@ 364@>6 2 =:76E:>6 >6>36C[ H6 DE:== 5@?2E6 >@?E9=J 2E G2C:@FD =:DE65 2>@F?ED @? E96 H63D:E6 7C@> E96 32D:4 Sd 2 >@?E9 FA E@ E96 A=2E:?F> S`__ 2 >@?E9 WH:E9 >6 36:?8 2 $:=G6C >@?E9=J >6>36C 5@?2E:?8 Sad 2 >@?E9X]k^Am

kAm}@H[ H96? =@@<:?8 2E E96 EH@ >2;@C A2CE:6D H63D:E6D[ ?@ H96C6 5@ x D66 2? @AE:@? E@ 364@>6 2 =:76E:>6 >6>36C 2D 3@E9 E96 #6AF3=:42?D 2?5 s6>@4C2ED 2=C625J FD6 D@ >F49 @7 J@FC E2IA2J6C >@?6J E@ A2J 7@C E96:C AC:>2C:6D[ 4@?G6?E:@?D[ 2?5 42?5:52E6D[ H9:=6 E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJD 4@?G6?E:@?D 4@>6 5:C64E=J 7C@> 5@?2E:@?D] *6E[ 46CE2:? DE2E6D[ 6DA64:2==J %6I2D[ DE:== ECJ E@ <66A FD @77 E96 32==@E 56DA:E6 E96:C 4C:6D @? 9@H E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJ 5@6D?E 92G6 2 492?46 E@ 86E 2?J @7 E96:C 42?5:52E6D 6=64E65] $@[ :E E2<6D 3@E9 C68F=2C 5@?@CD 2?5 E96 =:76E:>6 >6>36CD E@ <66A E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJ 7F?565 D@ E96 A2CEJ :D 23=6 E@ 7F?5 6G6CJE9:?8] p7E6C 2==[ ;FDE =:<6 2?J@?6 @FE E96C6[ E96 3:==D ?665 E@ 36 A2:5[ E@@]k^Am

kAm$@[ :7 J@F 4@?D:56C J@FCD6=7 2 {:36CE2C:2?[ DFAA@CE 2?5 G@E6 7@C @FC 42?5:52E6D 2?5 6G6? G@=F?E66C[ 364@>:?8 2 =:76E:>6 >6>36C H:== 36 2 G6CJ DA64:2= 4@?EC:3FE:@? E@ E96 {:36CE2C:2? !2CEJ @7 %6I2D] *@FC6 ?@E ;FDE 86EE:?8 E96 4@@= A6C6 H:E9 364@>:?8 2 =:76E:>6 >6>36C[ J@F 2C6 2=D@ 96=A:?8 E96 A2CEJ H:E9 H92E H6 ?665 E@ 5@ H:E9:? 6=64E:@? J62CD 2D H6== 2D :>A@CE2?E[ =682= 3FD:?6DD E92E H6 5@ 6G6CJ J62C]k^Am

Nolan Schmidt is an independent filmmaker, and serves as Vice Chair for the Guadalupe County Libertarian Party.

Visit link:
Schmidt: Perks of becoming a lifetime member of the party - Seguin Gazette-Enterprise