19 years ago today, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party’s 1996 and 2000 presidential nominee, posted the following to WorldNetDaily as his reaction to the events. Prior to 9/11, Browne warned interventionist American foreign policy would have catastrophic consequences for the nation. In his essay, he explains why the attacks should not surprise,…
Harry Browne: When Will We Learn? — Independent Political Report
Penn Jillette, Libertarian for Gary Johnson and the voice of world-famous magic duo Penn and Teller, has a message for people who want to tell you your third-party vote is wasted: “Fuck You in the Neck.” This week on Penn’s fantastic podcast, “Penn’s Sunday School,” he made this excellent point: When people say, “you’re wasting […]
Penn Jillette: “Fuck You in the Neck” if You Say My Third-Party Vote is Wasted
Today, Saturday, May 23, 2020, the Libertarian Party held a bifurcated national convention online — the first-ever for any political party to . The Libertarian Party will hold an in-person convention in Orlando, Florida from July 9-12, 2020. The party’s national convention was originally scheduled for this weekend in Austin, Texas; however, due to the COVID-19 crisis, it necessitated these changes.
Libertarian Party delegates elected Jo Jorgensen as their presidential nominee after a session lasting over twelve hours and four rounds of voting. Jorgensen is a lifetime Libertarian Party member and is well known in Libertarian circles; though time will tell if the general voting public in the United States will learn who Jorgensen is before the general election on November 3, 2020. Jorgensen is a candidate for those seeking a principled, freedom-based candidate who also happens to be a woman.
Today’s nomination process was challenging; however, Chair Nick Sarwark expertly threaded through the many interruptions (Robert’s Rules of Order) to get the hundreds of Libertarian delegates to vote for their nominee. Sarwark and all members of the Libertarian National Committee deserve a tremendous amount of gratitude from the delegates and the general membership of the Libertarian Party for handling the difficulties of putting on an online nominating convention. This weekend’s convention will continue tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern to nominate the party’s Vice-Presidential nominee. Although delegates will be participating on ZOOM, the public will be able to view tomorrow’s nomination via YouTube and other channels.
Jo Jorgensen will face the Republican Party and Democratic Party presidential nominees who are Donald Trump (incumbent) and Joe Biden, respectively. Jorgensen’s success in the 2020 general election will largely depend upon her ability to garner media exposure. Whether the mainstream media chooses to give Jorgensen equal or significant air time and print alongside Trump and Biden remains to be seen. Jorgensen also gives Republicans and Democrats a better option than the two other candidates who will likely be on the ballot in all 50 states.
The Libertarian Party is accustomed to making history, so today is not unusual. The party’s first presidential candidate was openly gay and had the first female to receive an electoral vote in the 1972 general election. The Libertarian Party was supportive of marijuana legalization decades before the rest of the nation came around to their way of thinking. The same can be said on a multitude of issues like asset forfeiture, same-sex marriage, foreign policy, etc. The Libertarian Party has been the most-advanced political party when it comes to maximizing the freedom of the individual.
Yesterday, Saturday, May 9, 2020, the Libertarian Party National Committee (LNC) met online to decide how to go about their 2020 national convention due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The previous Saturday, the LNC met and canceled their contract with the JW Marriott in Austin, Texas. This is becoming a common scenario with political parties as they make changes in their conventions in light of personal distancing requirements as well as travel challenges.
The LNC has decided to choose our Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee on Memorial Day weekend, the original time of the Austin, Texas convention. This will likely happen via ZOOM and details will be forthcoming for delegates. The choices for presidential nominees are extensive and vary greatly. You can see a complete list here.
As for other business before the national Libertarian Party, there will be an in-person convention happening July 8-12 at the Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando, Florida. No charge for parking for convention attendees 🙂
Yesterday’s meeting got bogged down in a minutia of Roberts Rules of Order as well as an embarrassing amount of infighting. No wonder, current Chair Nicholas Sarwark is no longer seeking to be chair (at least as much as I’ve been told). He was obviously frustrated throughout the eight-hour-long meeting that went from public comments to the LNC meeting, to Executive Session, then back to the actual LNC meeting where the final decisions were made.
Today, the Bylaws and Convention Rules Committee will meet.
For those wishing to watch party business, you can subscribe to the Libertarian Party’s YouTube channel here. Under Sarwark’s leadership, the party has been very good with transparency. In addition, to yesterday’s meeting, you can watch past videos that are very informative and occasionally entertaining.
As a matter of public disclosure, I have been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1996 and have held various positions with the Libertarian Party of Florida and the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County.
WHEN: 4:15-6:15 p.m., Wednesday, February 27
WHERE: Corner of Sapodilla and Okeechobee Boulevard
Tomorrow is the first-ever National Term Limits Day! Celebrate with us by meeting us in downtown West Palm Beach between 4:15pm and 6:15pm to let the world know.
February 27th is National Term Limits Day in honor of the ratification of the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 22nd Amendment was established by Congress in reaction to President Roosevelt’s election to an unprecedented fourth term in office. Traditionally, Presidents had followed America’s first leader, President George Washington, who stepped down after his second term.
Though Congress proposed the amendment for Presidential term limits, it conveniently forgot to establish term limits for itself.
On this day, we will reignite the flame of freedom in honor of Washington and ask that you join us in doing so. We’ll have plenty of signs to wave (or you can bring your own) and then cap off the evening at O’Shea’s pub in downtown West Palm Beach weather permitting.
RSVP on facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/events/384870878976417
The following is my personal opinion and not that of any organization in which I may have an affiliation.
Being a Libertarian in Palm Beach County affords me the ability to not be pressured by conservatives or liberals / Republicans or Democrats to vote a certain way. In other words, I feel zero obligation to simply go down my ballot and vote for all the Republicans or all the Democrats. And, sadly, this election season, there are no Libertarians for whom to vote. I vote for maximum freedom of the individual regardless of political party, which makes this year one of the hardest since 1983 when I first had the ability to vote, as the bulk of the candidates are anti-freedom — no matter their rhetoric.
So, we’ll start off with some links to a few orgs I tend to like with their voter guides though I do not agree with each and every assessment. It should also be noted, some of the amendments on the ballot should NOT be in the Florida Constitution but should be in Florida Statute. Similarly, this bundling of different issues within one amendment is tragic and should never happen again.
Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County
Countywide School Question: I will be voting NO on this effort to quadruple the school tax on Palm Beach County property owners and indirectly to renters. The reason is basic, the school board does not need the money. It has $3 billion at its disposal already and can easily reduce some of its administrative costs to afford the $150 million they say they need. It is awful that teachers are not paid more and students in our county do not feel safe while on school property because of the mismanagement of the school district.
Amendment 1: I will be voting YES even though I struggled with this one because, like the Libertarians have said, it does not address the core problem with property taxes. The only reason I am voting YES is to help reign in government spending which continues to be bloated. If passed, this amendment will save the average Florida homeowner $240 per year on their property taxes.
Amendment 2: Similar in scope is Amendment 2 which I will be voting YES. The reservations I have about it are similar to those of Amendment 1, but it will help property owners who are not protected by the “Save Our Homes” law and will limit the property tax increases for non-homesteaded properties to no more than 10%.
Amendment 3: This may seem counterintuitive for a Libertarian to vote NO on a question of gambling; however, I am voting NO. This amendment is a protectionist sham. While I am in favor of casino gambling and the Florida government has done a miserable job from a free market perspective, any expansion of gambling would require a 60 percent approval from the voters—a difficult threshold to overcome. This is not the answer to an already broken system and would not likely result in an expansion gambling put would likely protect those already in the business from encountering additional competition.
Amendment 4: I have been a long-time supporter of restoring one’s rights after they have served their time. I will be voting YES to automatically restore the rights of those who have completed their obligations to society after committing a criminal offense. I would suggest this amendment does not go far enough; however, it is better than what we have today. The process a felon needs to go through to restore their rights in Florida is horrible and must be corrected or, as with Amendment 4, improved.
Amendment 5: I will absolutely positively be voting YES on this amendment! It is telling how Governor Rick Scott, when he was running for governor stated repeatedly how bloated the state government budget was at the time. Now that he’s been governor it has the largest budget ever! So no matter who is in charge, Democrat or Republican we never have reduced government spending. We need the financial constraints Amendment 5 offers to control government spending. We have plenty of reserves and backup resources so that if something truly disastrous happened, we could weather the storm and the amendment still affords a vote of 2/3 of the legislature to handle extraordinary events.
Amendment 6: This is one of those HORRIBLE bundled amendments where a voter will be strongly in support of one aspect, yet is strongly against another aspect. This amendment bundles three different issues! I will be voting NO even though I agree with part of the amendment, the rest of the amendment, not so much.
Amendment 7: Like Amendment 6, this is a bundled amendment and I will be voting NO. My NO vote is not a vote against first responders!!
Amendment 8: This amendment was removed from the ballot.
Amendment 9: I will be voting NO. Again, this is another bundled amendment, this time dealing with offshore drilling and vaping inside businesses which have nothing to do with one another. I will be voting NO because businesses have a right to decide whether or not to allow vaping (it is none of the government’s business) and we already have laws heavily regulating natural gas production and offshore drilling in the state.
Amendment 10: Yet another bundled amendment which is highly unfortunate as I am forced to vote NO. If enacted, this amendment would cause duplication of bureaucracies between state and federal government agencies which is not needed. The amendment would also eliminate a county’s ability to abolish constitutional offices and make them permanent. This amendment could have easily been four separate amendments, debated on their own criterium.
Amendment 11: I will be voting YES as this amendment removes obsolete language while enabling foreign-born non-citizens to own real estate in Florida. Basically, this will right some wrongs and, hopefully, offer better property rights to Floridians.
Amendment 12: I will be voting NO on this issue even though I have some strong reservations in doing so. While lobbying is rife with abuse in the Florida legislature (and that alone would lead me to a YES vote) it does not trump one’s right to free speech and their ability to earn a living. I do not have the full answer to solving the lobbying problem in Tallahassee and even here in Palm Beach County, I just know Amendment 12 is not the answer.
Amendment 13: I will be voting YES to ban gambling on the racing of dogs. As with a few of the other amendments, I have serious problems with such a thing being in our Florida Constitution, but sadly, this is one of those few moments I could be somewhat accused of being hypocritical. Just like with the “pregnant pigs” amendment and medical marijuana, it is sad we are here putting something like this in our constitution (if it passes). While I am on the side of gamblers and para-mutuals, when it comes to animals, especially when I personally have seen the abuse some of these animals have had to endure, you get little sympathy from me. Gamble on anything you want so long as it is voluntary in nature; I can guarantee you that the bulk of these dogs are not doing it voluntarily.
As for the Justices and Judges, I have no opinion to offer.
Florida Representative District 89: I do not like either of them. Neither is closer than the other to being considered a “freedom-based” candidate. Worst case scenario, I’d go with the underdog Bonfiglio as it is clear to me Caruso will win by a landslide. And who knows, there’s still quite some time between now and election day, perhaps things could turn around.
Florida Representative District 87: I have met both and though I like both candidates, I cannot recommend one over the other. If pushed into a corner, I guess I’d go with LeBeu, the underdog third party candidate as we do agree on a few issues.
Florida Representative District 86: Oh my, just NO on both. If you live in this district, my sympathies are with you. Again, if pushed into a corner, I guess you could with Willhite, who is a good guy, but there is little to like from a Florida legislature standpoint.
Florida Representative District 85: Rick Roth is the clear choice for freedom-loving voters. He’s not perfect, but he is far better than his opponent.
Florida Representative District 82: MaryLynn Magar is the clear choice for North County voters.
Florida State Senator District 30: This is another pointless exercise as Powell will win, but I would be writing in Josh Santos.
Florida State Senator District 25: While not on board 100% with Gayle Harrell, she would have a strong lead in my book over her opponent.
Commissioner of Agriculture: Skip this race, they are both terrible. Actually, that may be an overstatement, but I would not vote for either as their negatives outweigh any positives they have. And they both have positives, it’s just a shame we can’t mesh them both into one candidate.
Chief Financial Officer: Undecided. For me, it’s a tossup between Ring, Petronis and writing in Dembinsky. I likely will not decide until I am in the voting booth, quite frankly.
Florida Attorney General: I will be voting for Jeff Siskind. Moody and Shaw seem to be the opposite of freedom lovers while Siskind is — at least as best one can be as attorney general.
Florida Governor: Another tough race for a Libertarian to decide for whom to vote. Ultimately, I would go with Darcy Richardson. Like most candidates this year, he is not perfect from a Libertarian standpoint but seems to be the closest in the race.
U.S. Congress District 22: Tough choice and this would be another I would have to bow out. I can’t agree with either candidate on the bulk of the issues and certainly would never label either as a freedom-lover, unfortunately. While I have a deep respect for Deutch and he’s a good guy, he’s a no-vote. I could be wrong, but unlike Deutch, Kimaz’s campaign seems to be ego-driven rather than issue driven.
U.S. Congress District 20: Well, this is a no-brainer. First, whether you like him or not, Hastings will win. And for that reason alone, I would write-in Jay Alan Bonner.
U.S. Congress District 18: Brian Mast and Lauren Baer, what an awesome race. It is a shame neither is about freedom. They both want to take away your AR-15 while espousing all other types of government force onto our lives. No thank you, skip it!
U.S. Senator from Florida: Again, similar to above, neither the Republican or the Democrat are very good choices. It pains me to say that I am not able to vote for either the Republican or the Democrat and may have to sit this one out. Scott supports gun control while picking winners and losers with the unprovable strategy of corporate welfare, while Nelson is an empty suit, only showing up around election time. Nelson is another picker of winners and losers. He supports exempting my much-loved premium cigars from federal regulation which I appreciate, but he does so not out of principle which is rather pathetic. This is a link to all the candidates for U.S. Senate in Florida, pick a write-in candidate that seems the least crazy and write their name in correctly on the ballot so it gets counted or sit this one out. This is a sad election season.
Andrew Gillum, a candidate seeking to be Florida’s next governor, is proposing to raise the state’s corporate tax rate from 5.5% up to 7.75% (a 40.9% increase) in order to pay for giving teachers a $50,000 per year salary, “raising the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, and enacting a Medicare for All policy.” For many, this sounds like a great idea to hit those greedy corporations where it hurts — in their bank accounts. That is until you get into the details of such a proposal in action.
First, and foremost, the proposal, if it ever saw the light of day, would supposedly bring in just over an additional billion dollars to the state coffers. Currently, it brings in around $2.5 billion and theoretically it would bring in $3.52 billion. Many have questioned if an extra billion dollars would pay for all of what Gillum is claiming. More importantly, if Gillum made it into the Governor’s Mansion, such a proposal would have to be passed by the Florida Legislature for him to sign and that would be quite the feat.
Who would pay this 41% increase in corporate taxes?
Gillum and spinmasters would have you believe those greedy capitalistic corporations would be paying; however, the reality is Floridians will be hit with the tax increase. Corporate taxes are simply a conduit for which consumers pay. If a corporation pays 5% or 50% of their profits in corporate taxes to any government entity, that tax is ultimately paid by their customers a/k/a us as part of every transaction.
Will it raise the $1 billion it says?
Not likely. Many corporations will strategize to reduce their tax exposure so they can remain competitive and keep their prices low for their customers. There are no concrete figures but many believe it will likely bring in an additional $500-600 million. No matter the figure, it is far short of what Gillum is selling or able to deliver.
Unintended consequences…
Although I say “unintended” anyone with even a rudimentary study of economics or having been in business for any length of time, will know the following are what will happen under such a proposal. The proposal would hurt most those who it is intended to help. It would hurt those seeking employment as employers will not hire as many workers, businesses will be forced to let some workers go — finding more efficient and less expensive means of production, and prices of goods & services across Florida would rise. So, in a nutshell, if the proposal was ever enacted it would hamper the economic growth in Florida.
While some will vote for Gillum thinking they are helping the poor, helping teachers, and helping those with serious medical conditions; they are actually doing the complete opposite. And yet others are considering voting for Gillum in order to create a blockage from any legislation from getting through considering we have a Republican-controlled state legislature. There are some of Gillum’s platform to be supportive of; however, his corporate tax plan is not one of them.
If Andrew Gillum truly believes in his tagline #BringItHome he would eliminate the state corporate tax and allow Floridians to keep more of what they earn rather than feed it to those “greedy corporations” and the even greedier state government.
It is everyone’s responsibility to research the candidates running to be Florida’s next governor and spend some time to research whether their platform will have the intended consequences if enacted. Go beyond the rhetoric and the shiny headlines and see if it actually makes sense in the long run.
Some links for your perusal:
Why Gillum should do the opposite and decrease or eliminate the state’s corporate tax
Gubernatorial candidates whose name will appear on the November ballot:
Ryan Foley (no website found)
NOTE: Bruce Nathan is expected in court later today to argue his case to be included on the November ballot for governor.
Recently I have noticed a dramatic change to my Twitter news feed and it has turned into an echo chamber — not good. I am not talking about tweets that I post, but what Twitter has decided to curate for me to watch on my feed. Earlier this year, I noticed my news feed comprised of a mix of top news from people and orgs that I did not follow mixed in with people I do follow. Besides promoted posts, now my news feed is comprised of nearly all Libertarians and freedom-minded organizations. I mean, as much as I like @LarrySharpe, I do not need to see where others have posted about him and his last 15 posts cluttering my feed over the last half hour.
But that is for the Gods at Twitter (a/k/a @Jack) to decide for me as there is no way for me to control my own news feed. Although Twitter has a page telling you “How to control your Twitter experience,” it is weak. Weak meaning, it is mostly about exclusion rather than inclusion. What is found on that page is a snowflake’s dream and not really about having a great experience on Twitter. Twitter needs to get back to having an algorithm where I do not have my same thoughts parroted back at me, but offering a wide array of differing thoughts, news, etc.
While it is good to see some of what they are up to, it is not my only interest and frankly, I enjoy keeping up on Twitter accounts with opposing views. Perhaps I am in the minority these days, but I genuinely enjoy hearing from all types of views on politics, economics, etc.
In late November or early December, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Timbs v. State of Indiana, a case that will decide whether the U.S. Constitution’s protection against excessive fines applies to state and local governments, just as it has applied to the federal government since 1791. The case involves the forfeiture of a $42,000 vehicle for a crime involving a few hundred dollars. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to only the federal government and does not apply at all to state and local authorities.
“Our client, Tyson Timbs, has already paid his debt to society,” said Wesley Hottot, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which is representing Timbs. “He’s taken responsibility for what he’s done. He’s paid fees. He’s in drug treatment. He’s holding down a job. He’s staying clean. But the State of Indiana wants to take his property, too, and give the proceeds to the agency that seized it. As we explained in our merits brief, there are limits, and this forfeiture crosses the line. We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling. This case is about more than just a vehicle; it’s about whether 330 million Americans get to enjoy their rights under the U.S. Constitution.”
Nineteen amicus (or “friend-of-the-court”) briefs have been filed thus far in Timbs. Among the more notable amici are:
Opposition amici in the case are due October 11.
The Institute for Justice released a high-resolution video news release that recounts Tyson Timbs’ battle to get his vehicle back and to extend constitutional protections against excessive fines across the entire United States.
“President Trump’s administration is reportedly seeking a 72 percent cut to the budget of Department of Energy programs related to energy efficiency and renewable energy,” The Hill reports. “Draft budget documents obtained by The Washington Post show the Trump administration will ask for $575.5 million in spending for the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The office’s current spending level is set at $2.04 billion for the fiscal year.”
That’s a great start and we should not just isolate this aspect of the energy sector; it should extend to ALL sectors. Renewable energy subsidies distort the free market and keep electricity prices high for all of us. This distortion is true in all areas of government subsidies.
Farm subsidies, crony capitalism, sugar, golf courses, corporate welfare, oil, etc. The list of subsidies provided by the federal, state and local governments is nearly endless. It has become so entrenched in our society that we no longer know the true cost of anything Americans purchase.
So, while the different levels of government in our country try to push various agendas to make our world “better,” they all-to-often go the wrong way and almost always with unintended consequences. Additionally, one cannot forget the corruption that quickly follows most subsidy programs.
The absurdity of elected officials in Tallahassee trying to educate Floridians in what is a healthy marriage is rich with fodder. Florida State Senators and Representatives have had to resign due to the wild and crazy culture in the Florida legislature and they want to put out a “Healthy Marriage Guide.” Uhm, NO!
First off, should our state government get involved? NO! Second, should a band of philandering public officials guide us on what will result in a healthy marriage? No!
SB 1580 and H 1323 should die before hitting the floor. It is not the business of the
Florida legislature to involve itself in the private marriage of Floridians. The bills would force those seeking permission from the State of Florida to marry to affirm they have viewed the guide or have similar information.
This is going in the wrong direction by getting the State more involved in the personal lives of Florida citizens. Instead, the State should work to be less involved and give them more freedom, not less.
Karl Dickey 