Mediaboss Marketing

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) Nevada is now solidified as a safe-haven for abortion patients.

Wednesday, Governor Joe Lombardo signed Senate Bill 131 into law, which protects out-of-state patients seeking an abortion and providers who perform them.

In a rare move, hes one of three republican governors in the country to sign an abortion protections bill.

Governor Lombardo describes himself as Catholic and pro-life, but has said the issue of abortion should only be decided by Nevada voters themselves.

Dr. Sondra Cosgrove, a professor for College of Southern Nevada and executive director of Vote Nevada, says the move is as unique as Nevada politics, calling it libertarian' rather than blue or red.

If you live in Clark County, we're pretty libertarian down here when it comes to people doing what they want and just being safe. So it really fits within that Clark County paradigm of letting people have personal freedom and having the state not give them their way, Cosgrove said.

When Roe V. Wade was overturned in June of last year, it sent thousands of patients to Nevada for abortions. Planned Parenthood said half of their patients were from out-of-state and wait times were getting longer.

Dr. Cosgrove points to the history, when Nevada had more lax divorce laws than the rest of the country, it became a divorce destination. She predicts this enhancement could send more patients our way.

The Nevada Democratic Party sent the following statement after Gov. Lombardo signed the legislation.

We reached out to Nevada GOP for comment, but did not immediately hear back.

Go here to see the original:
Gov. Lombardo one of few republicans to sign abortion protections ... - KTNV 13 Action News Las Vegas

Reuters

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announces new cabinet during a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, on June 3, 2023.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday pledged to introduce a new constitution to replace the current one, as he officially began a new five-year term as the Turkish head of state.

In his inauguration speech at the presidential palace, Erdogan said the current constitution was "a product of the (1980) coup" and that it needed to be replaced with "a libertarian, civil and inclusive one" that would strengthen democracy.

The current Turkish constitution was introduced in 1982 and has been amended 19 times since then. The last amendment in 2017 introduced a presidential system and abolished the parliamentary system.

Erdogan, sworn in by the country's parliament for a third term as president earlier on Saturday, also said the country had set foot on a new path and was entering what he called the "Century of Turkey," urging the Turkish people to "transcend the limitations of election-focused discussions" and "turn their gaze toward the future."

Erdogan won 52.18 percent of votes in the presidential runoff on May 28 against his rival Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the center-left Republican People's Party.

The president, who has been leading the country since he became prime minister in 2003, became the first executive president of Turkey in 2018 following a constitutional referendum in 2017 which changed Turkey's parliamentary system into a presidential one.

Link:
Erdogan vows introduction of new constitution in inauguration speech - SHINE News

Among the various reassessments of Kevin McCarthy following his successful debt ceiling negotiations, the one with the widest implications belongs to Matthew Continetti, who writes in The Washington Free Beacon that McCarthys superpower is his desire to be speaker. He likes and wants his job.

If you hadnt followed American politics across the last few decades, this would seem like a peculiar statement: What kind of House speaker wouldnt want the job?

But part of whats gone wrong with American institutions lately is the failure of important figures to regard their positions as ends unto themselves. Congress, especially, has been overtaken by what Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute describes as a platform mentality, where ambitious House members and senators treat their offices as places to stand and be seen as talking heads, movement leaders, future presidents rather than as roles to inhabit and opportunities to serve.

On the Republican side, this tendency has taken several forms, from Newt Gingrichs yearning to be a Great Man of History, to Ted Cruzs ambitious grandstanding in the Obama years, to the emergence of Trump-era performance artists like Marjorie Taylor Greene. And the partys congressional institutionalists, from dealmakers like John Boehner to policy mavens like Paul Ryan, have often been miserable-seeming prisoners of the talking heads, celebrity brands and would-be presidents.

This dynamic seemed likely to imprison McCarthy as well, but hes found a different way of dealing with it: Hes invited some of the bomb throwers into the legislative process, trying to turn them from platform-seekers into legislators by giving them a stake in governance, and so far hes been rewarded with crucial support from figures like Greene and Thomas Massie, the quirky Kentucky libertarian. And its clear that part of what makes this possible is McCarthys enthusiasm for the actual vote-counting, handholding work required of his position, and his lack of both Gingrichian egomania and get-me-out-of-here impatience.

But McCarthy isnt operating in a vacuum. The Biden era has been good for institutionalism generally, because the president himself seems to understand and appreciate the nature of his office more than Barack Obama ever did. As my colleague Carlos Lozada noted on our podcast this week, in both the Senate and the White House, Obama was filled with palpable impatience at all the limitations on his actions. This showed up constantly in his negotiation strategy, where he had a tendency to use his own office as a pundits platform, lecturing the G.O.P. on what they should support and thereby alienating Republicans from compromise in advance.

Whereas Biden, who actually liked being a senator, is clearly comfortable with quiet negotiation on any reasonable grounds, which is crucial to keeping the other side invested in a deal. And hes comfortable, as well, with letting the spin machine run on both sides of the aisle, rather than constantly imposing his own rhetorical narrative on whatever bargain Republicans might strike.

The other crucial element in the healthier environment is the absence of what Cruz brought to the debt-ceiling negotiations under Obama the kind of sweeping maximalism, designed to build a presidential brand, that turns normal horse-trading into an existential fight.

Expectating that kind of maximalism from Republicans, some liberals kept urging intransigence on Biden long after it became clear that what McCarthy wanted was more in line with previous debt-ceiling bargains. But McCarthys reasonability was sustainable because of the absence of a leading Republican senator playing Cruzs absolutist part. Instead, the most notable populist Republican elected in 2022, J.D. Vance, has been busy looking for deals with populist Democrats on issues like railroad safety and bank-executive compensation, or adding a constructive amendment to the debt-ceiling bill even though he voted against it as though he, no less than McCarthy, actually likes and wants his current job.

One reason for the diminishment of Cruz-like grandstanders is the continued presence of Donald Trump as the G.O.P.s personality-in-chief, to whose eminence no senator can reasonably aspire. At least through 2024, its clear the only way that Trump might be unseated is through the counterprogramming offered by Ron DeSantis, who is selling himself well see with what success as the candidate of governance and competence; no bigger celebrity or demagogue is walking through that door.

So for now theres more benefit to legislative normalcy for ambitious Republicans, and less temptation toward the platform mentality, than there would be if Trumps part were open for the taking.

Whatever happens, it will be years until that role comes open. In which case Kevin McCarthy could be happy in his job for much longer than might have been expected by anyone watching his tortuous ascent.

See more here:
Opinion | Can Kevin McCarthy and Joe Biden Fix Washington? - The New York Times

The debt limit deal negotiated by President Biden and Speaker McCarthy has cleared its first hurdle as Congress prepares to vote on the measure before the June 5 default date.

The House Rules Committee advanced the legislation to the House floor in a vote late Tuesday evening. All four Democrats and two Republicans voted against the measure, with seven other Republicans voting in the affirmative.

The two GOP dissenters Congressmen Chip Roy and Ralph Norman have called the legislation not a good deal with no substantive policy reforms and insanity respectively.

Congressman Thomas Massie a libertarian who often votes against key spending priorities of Congressional leadership kept his cards close to his chest as the hearing kicked off, but eventually offered his blessing to the legislation.

Im reluctant to disclose how I might vote on this rule at this moment because then all the cameras leave, Mr. Massie said, which elicited a laugh from the crowd.

Mr. Massie did support advancing the bill to the House floor so that every member could express their opinions on the legislation, though he himself did not commit to voting for the bill on final passage.

If we want to control the overall amount of spending and if there are policies or things that we dont see happening that need to happen, or things that shouldnt be happening in the administrative branch, then that is our opportunity, to cut spending Mr. Massie said of budget negotiations that will happen later this year. I dont like the process that led to this bill, Im not going to lie.

Mr. Massies equivocation is a reminder that Mr. McCarthy will likely have to rely on Democrats on the House floor if he hopes to pass the bill. A center-left caucus in the House, the New Democrat Coalition, publicly endorsed the bill Monday, buoying hopes that Mr. McCarthy can count on a substantial number of Democrats.

Messrs. Biden and McCarthy have achieved a bipartisan agreement that will save our country from default until 2025 and protect our nation from economic collapse, the group said in a statement. There are 94 members of the New Democrat Coalition serving in the House.

So far, there are dozens of Republicans who have denounced the legislation. The conservative Freedom Caucus has said they are trying to have less than half of the House Republican conference vote for the final measure.

That a deal had been reached in principle was announced by Messrs. Biden and McCarthy late Saturday evening. The Fiscal Responsibility Act, as it is known, is 99 pages long and includes a number of modest changes to federal spending and regulations.

The two men agreed that the debt limit must be pushed high enough so that this level of brinksmanship does not occur in the shadow of the 2024 elections. The bill will raise the debt limit by more than $2 trillion pushing the next debt limit fight to January 2025 at the current pace of spending.

The only two spending areas to see year-over-year increases are the Pentagon and veterans services. All other discretionary spending from healthcare, education and research to green energy investments will be capped at a level that will result in hundreds of billions of dollars in savings over the next six years.

Mr. McCarthys team also won a victory by slashing the budget of the Internal Revenue Service. In total, more than $20 billion will be cut from the agency responsible for collecting taxes a 25 percent cut to its total budget.

Republicans took aim at the IRS early in this Congress, passing a bill that would rescind funding for the more than 80,000 new IRS agents who were hired as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act last year.

The Biden administration agrees with the conservative House members that the deal does not represent a significant change in federal spending. Its flat, one White House source told NBC News of the deal. Its a difference of about $1 billion. In a divided government, were not going to get the spending levels Democrats want.

Appeasing his right flank is a key priority for Mr. McCarthy. Congressman Eli Crane a Freedom Caucus member who believed the original Republican debt limit proposal did not go far enough told CNN that he has had conversations with some of his Freedom Caucus colleagues about calling for a vote of no confidence in the speaker, which could lead to another seemingly endless voting process to either retain Mr. McCarthy or choose a new leader.

It does come up from time to time, Mr. Crane said of the possibility of removing Mr. McCarthy. We look at all of the alternatives and contingency plans that could play out over the next two years.

Continue reading here:
McCarthy-Biden Debt Limit Deal Clears First Hurdle in Key House ... - The New York Sun

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine, 1971

I dont know if John Lennon was self-aware enough to see the irony of a filthy rich superstar longing for a utopia in which everything belongs to everybody, so nobody has to do without anything, the perfect equality within our reach if we just wish for it hard enough.

But before he was murdered in 1980, he was getting there, slowly but surely. He didnt quite become a full-fledged minimal government necessary libertarian who knew that property rights and human rights are not mutually exclusive, but in fact one and the same. He did grow up a little, though, becoming a family man who understood that freedom begins and ends with what each individual is allowed to do and how much he gets to own of what he has accomplished.

What I used to be is guilty about money, he said in one of his last interviews Because I thought money was equated with sin. I dont know. I think I got over it, because I have to either put up or shut up, you know. If you are going to be a monk with nothing, do it. Otherwise, I am going to try to make money, make it. Money itself isnt the root of all evil.

Let us all hope the United States Supreme Court is on the same learning curve that John Lennon was.

Government has two roles when it comes to private property: To protect those who own it against the machinations of those who do not, and to be cautious when taking any of it for the public good. When the government fails at the latter, it makes it hard to believe it is serious about the former.

Which has so often been the case that there should be an addendum to the national motto of In God we trust give em an inch, and theyll take a mile.

The nadir came with the despicable Kelo vs. City of New London in 2005, in which a 5-4 majority ruled that the Connecticut city taking someones property for a public purpose was the same thing as taking it for a public use, constitutionally speaking. But use had always meant something for the public good, such as a dam or a road. Purpose meant whatever might benefit government coffers.

So, in Kelo, the court authorized taking property from one private owner and giving it to another, one that promised to economically develop it and bring in more tax revenue. The court thus legalized thuggery, merging the two roles of governments property function and allowing gross violation of both of them.

There are some signs, thank goodness, that the court has grown up a little since then.

In two rulings this term both unanimous the court has put some brakes on the governments cavalier treatment of private property. Even if there is scant evidence for that conclusion, perhaps you will allow me to Imagine the best.

In one ruling, the court ruled for a 94-year-old Minnesota woman whose home was taken for failure to pay a $15,000 property tax bill. The county sold the property for $40,000 and decided to keep the extra $25,000. No, the court said; that violated the just compensation wording of the Constitution.

The ruling was met with strong approval across the political spectrum, from the very conservative Pacific Legal Foundation to the very liberal ACLU. Nobody likes to see ordinary, defenseless people preyed upon by powerful bullies. It was similar to the reaction in an Indiana case from a few terms ago, when the court ruled that authorities violated the excessive fines clause by seizing a $42,000 Land Rover from a criminal who had been sentenced to probation and a $1,200 fine on a drug charge.

The human right of every man to own his own life implies the right to find and transform resources to produce that which sustains and advances life, said economist Murray N. Rothbard. That product is a mans property. That is why property rights are foremost among human rights and why any loss of one endangers the others.

He wrote that in 1959, so lets forgive him saying man instead of person. The thought still rings true.

And John Lennon, self-described troublemaking son of a family-deserting merchant seaman, who through talent and hard work became part of one of the most famous songwriting duos in history, could not have said it better.

View original post here:
Leo Morris: Property imagine it anew - The Republic