LP:Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft by government

February 8, 2017

Yesterday, at a meeting with sheriffs, President Trump commented about ruining the career of a Texas legislator that proposed a bill to reform civil asset forfeiture.

“We’ll destroy his career,” the President said.

The legislator was unnamed and there are several Texas legislators currently proposing bills to reform civil asset forfeiture laws.

Such laws vary by state but in many states it is legal for law enforcement officials to seize property from someone before they are convicted of any crime and then even keep that property even if the person is found innocent.

There have been many cases documented that show how this practice can be abused and, for every case documented, there are countless others that are not.

The Libertarian Party thinks that the current practice of civil asset forfeiture is completely unfair and un-American.

Libertarian National Committee Chair, Nicholas Sarwark, says, “Civil asset forfeiture is nothing more than legalized theft by the government. Basic fairness and justice requires that there be a criminal conviction before someone’s assets can be taken for being proceeds of a crime.”

Sarwark continues, “This legalized theft has been a driver of the failed war on drugs. Thank you to the Texas legislators reforming our system to protect the property of innocent people from being stolen by the government. Our President and his nominee for Attorney General should be ashamed of continuing this immoral policy of legalized theft and bullying legislators who stand up for their constituents.”

He concludes, “When bullies don’t have an argument, they use threats to try to get their way. Such pathetic behavior from the President is sad, but not surprising.”

Senator Jeff Sessions, President Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, has been an outspoken advocate for civil asset forfeiture

Source:Post by Lauren Daugherty @ lp.org https://www.lp.org/civil-asset-forfeiture-is-legalized-theft-by-government/

Robby Soave:”Trump Gives Victory Speech, Liberals Rediscover Appeal of Limited Government”

President-Elect Donald Trump preached national unity and vowed to “reclaim our country’s destiny,” in his victory speech, which was delivered around 3:00 a.m. in New York City. Rival candidate Hillary Clinton had already called Trump to concede, he told the crowd.

Trump complimented Clinton on running a “hard-fought campaign.”

“She fought very hard,” he said. “Hillary has worked very long and hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country. I mean that very sincerely.”

Trump then turned to the business of healing the vast political divide. He promised to be a president for all Americans.

“For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people, I’m reaching out to you for your guidance and your help, so that we can work together and unify our great country,” he said.

The president-elect claimed to have a “great” economic plan, though he offered no details. He closed by thanking his most vocal supporters—his family, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Ben Carson, and others—and assuring the American people that “you’ll be so proud of your president” by the time his reign comes to an end.

Trump’s election has sent shockwaves: the markets are in free-fall, Democratic voters are petrified, and the media has no idea what just happened.

Libertarians should be girding themselves for four years of the federal government trampling their freedoms—but of course, we’ve come to expect that regardless.
Full Commentary by Robby Soave @ Reason Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/in-victory-speech-donald-trump-promises

California to Vote On Death, Taxes & Legal Pot

California voters will decide on several controversial issues this year, including high tax rates on the wealthy, the death penalty, registering sales of bullets, legalization of marijuana and ending the death penalty. I hope this guidance on the more important ballot measures helps you to decide how to vote.

PROPOSITION 51 – $9 billion bond issue for government schools. Cost with interest total $17.6 billion. Vote NO

PROPOSITION 53 – Requires voter approval for state Revenue Bonds – Vote YES

PROPOSITION 54 – Requires that a bill introduced into the California legislature be posted online for 72 hours
before the legislature can vote on it. Vote YES

PROPOSITION 55 – 12 year extension of temporary hikes in income tax and sales tax. The state has enough money.
Higher taxes will depress growth in California Vote NO

PROPOSITION 57 -Allows parole for nonviolent felons; sentence credits for good behavior, rehabilitation
and education. Saves taxpayer money Vote YES

PROPOSITION 59 – asks California voters to back constitutional amendment to wipe out free speech guarantee.
Advisory only. Vote NO

PROPOSITION 62 – Repeals Death Penalty; Applies to existing death sentences – converts them to life in prison without parole. Increases portion of inmate wages to be applied to victim resititution. Vote YES

PROPOSITION 63 – Regulates sales of bullets. Creates new bureaucracy Vote NO

PROPOSITION 64 – Legalizes possession of one ounce of marijuana. Creates regulatory structure for production and sale of marijuana. Guarantees protections for medical users. Possession no longer makes you a criminal. Vote YES

PROPOSITION 66 -Set limits on appeals of death penalty convictions Vote NO

Vote for Gary Johnson for Less Government

Just to be clear:a vote for Gary Johnson for President is a vote against Hilary Clinton – and a vote against Donald Trump.

Hilary Clinton promises new federal aid programs to deal with education, healthcare, and law enforcement. This will burden a federal government already 20 trillion dollars in the hole. In less than two decades, the Clinton brand has gone from “the era of big government is over” to Bernie on a budget.

Of course, Hilary Clinton has a record of support for big government. During her 8 years in the Senate, she voted for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the bank bailout – initiatives by President Bush intended to give the federal government new powers for law enforcement, education, and financial control. As President she will continue to promote government as the solution to social and economic problems in America.

Hilary Clinton also favors active government in international affairs. In the Senate, she voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2002. She joined with 29 other Senate Democrats to vote in favor of George W Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war, based on faulty intelligence. In 2009 she left the Senate to become Secretary of State. As Secretary of State she pushed for interventions in Libya and Syria.

George W Bush’s pre-emptive war on Iraq resulted in more than 4000 Americans dying, more than 40,000 with life-changing wounds, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. The Iraq war has cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars, and the costs continue to rise – medical care for wounded vets, reconstruction in Iraq, and interest on the debt which resulted from the multi-trillion dollar war. The Iraq war has not made America safer and has not brought peace and order to Iraq, where fighting is going on today between Iraqi Shi’ite militias and the Islamic State.

The intervention in Libya has ended the tyrannical reign of Muamar Qaddafi, but it has also led to chaos and violence as constant companions for the Libyan people. The Libyan chaos has made room for extremists who may threaten nearby countries in the future, and an end to chaos is nowhere in sight.

Syria is engulfed in a civil war, with more than two sides. As Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton lobbied for direct intervention and aid to Syrian militias that might be induced to fight both the Assad regime and the forces of the Islamic State. Currently, the C.I.A. is supplying weapons to several rebel groups, including at least one with ties to Al Qaeda. The Pentagon is providing aid to several other extremist militias in Syria. US intervention in Libya and Syria is taking place after the disaster of the intervention in Iraq, and before any real plan to bring freedom to the Libyan and Syrian people has been developed.

Hilary Clinton has a record of support for active government at home, and military and political intervention in the Middle East. As President, Hilary Clinton will be guided by this faith in government, and all Americans will pay the price.

Donald Trump does not provide a real alternative. Mr Trump proposes costly new government powers to deal with illegal immigration. His plan to deport up to 11 million people would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and involve a massive increase in federal police powers. Building a wall along the border would cost more billions.

Mr Trump proposes very high tariffs – 35% to 45% – directed against America’s biggest trading partners. Donald Trump’s anti-trade policies would devastate American business, prompt retaliation, and throw many out of work.

Immigration restrictions, mass deportation, and limits on international trade form the core of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Donald Trump’s crusade against immigrants alienates Hispanic voters as well as liberals and conservatives who favor a liberal immigration policy. His calls for punitive tariffs directed at China and Mexico drives away business owners. Donald Trump cannot beat Hilary Clinton; conservatives need to look at another choice.

Gary Johnson has a record of cutting taxes and holding the line on government growth. He and Governor Weld have the experience to deal with the financial mess that is the federal government. American taxpayers cannot afford to pay for all the programs that the politicians promise. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote in favor of downsizing the federal government, and a vote for two former Governors with the experience to cut the power and the cost of the federal government.

A vote for Gary Johnson and other Libertarian candidates will build America’s third party, and lay the groundwork for a real challenge to bipartisan statism in 2018, 2020 and beyond. Vote Libertarian, Tuesday, November 8!

California: Vote No on Debt and Taxes!

On Tuesday, November 8, Californians will vote on whether to issue 9 billion dollars in bonds to pay for school facilities, and whether to extend temporary tax hikes on high earners.

Proposition 51 authorizes the state to issue 9 billion dollars in bonds to pay for construction and repair of facilities for public schools, charters schools and community colleges. The bonds will cost the taxpayers 8.6 billion dollars in interest, for a total cost of $17.6 billion dollars. The state will have to collect a half billion dollars a year in taxes for 35 years to pay back these bonds.

Governor Jerry Brown opposes this new bond issue, because the state has too much debt already. Libertarians favor a system of private schools for all, with scholarships for those who need help paying tuition. This will guarantee access to education for all, while transferring the capital cost of school construction from the taxpayers to private and corporate educational businesses. Governor Jerry Brown and The Libertarian Party urge you to vote No on more debt, Vote No on Proposition 51.

Proposition 55 will extend for 12 years income tax hikes on residents earning $250,000 a year or more. Governor Jerry Brown promoted temporary tax hikes in 2012, and he favors letting the tax increases expire. California already puts a high cost on success, making the state less welcoming to successful individuals and successful companies. We must create a business climate that promotes economic growth in order to keep Californians working and productive. We need tax cuts for economic growth, not tax hikes. Governor Jerry Brown and The Libertarian Party urge you to vote against high taxes, Vote No on Proposition 55.

Proposition 53 is an amendment to the California Constitution that will require voter approval of revenue bonds if the issue exceeds 2 billion dollars. The Constitution now requires approval by the voters for bonds dedicated to funding specific projects, but does not require voter approval for general purpose revenue bonds. Proposition 53 will make it harder for the state to go more into debt. The Libertarian Party urges you to Vote Yes on Proposition 53.

Sullum:”Gary Johnson’s Refreshing Foreign Policy Skepticism”

One of the few appealing aspects of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has been his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s reckless interventionism. But the bellicose billionaire combines that criticism with promises of a gratuitous military buildup, a casual attitude toward the use of American weapons, and a disturbing tendency to view trade and immigration as acts of war.

To get a sense of what a more disciplined, consistent, and thoughtful critique of Clintonian warmongering sounds like, listen to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for president. Notwithstanding the popular portrayal of Johnson as a foreign policy ignoramus based on his embarrassing “Aleppo moments,” the former New Mexico governor offers a bracing alternative to Clinton’s supposedly sophisticated yet consistently careless embrace of violence as a tool for reshaping the world.

Again and again as first lady, senator, and secretary of state, from Serbia to Syria, Clinton has supported military interventions that had nothing to do with national defense. Mindful of the damage done by the promiscuous use of America’s armed forces, Johnson promises a different approach: When in doubt, stay out.

“As president,” Johnson said in a recent speech at the University of Chicago, “I would not need to be talked out of dropping bombs and sending young men and women into harm’s way. I would be the president who would have to be convinced it is absolutely necessary to protect the American people or clear U.S. interests. I will be the skeptic in the room.”

Full column by Jacob Sullum @ Reason http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/19/gary-johnsons-refreshing-foreign-policy

Tim Kaine’s Bogus Antiwar Appeal

Recent polls show that most Americans don’t trust Donald Trump, and most Americans do not trust Hilary Clinton. A current ABC/Washington Post poll indicates that 64% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump, and 53% have an unfavorable view of Hilary Clinton.

Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate, continues to hold the support of 8 to 10% of voters nationally, and polling 15% or more in 15 states. Polls show that former Gov. Johnson draws support from both Mr Trump and Secretary Clinton. Clinton supporters are worried; progressive websites and Democrat politicians are attacking Gary Johnson and The Libertarian Party in hopes of insuring a Clinton victory.

The Hill reports that Sen. Tim Kaine is telling people that they should not vote for a third party, because it might throw the election to Donald Trump. He brings up the 2000 election, claiming that votes for Nader in Florida led to the victory of George W Bush, and that resulted in the Iraq War.

I am glad Sen. Kaine understands the Iraq War is a disaster for America. His logic implies that Al Gore as President would have undertaken a foreign policy based on peace. This is at odds with the record of Al Gore in the Senate, and the record of the Clinton/Gore administration.

CLINTON, GORE AND THE FIRST IRAQ WAR

The Iraq War authorized in 2002 was a sequel to an earlier Iraq War in 1991, during the reign of George H W Bush. Sen Al Gore voted to authorize the first Iraq War, along with Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid and 7 more Democrats.

At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton explained that in 1992, he picked Al Gore as his candidate for Vice-President, because Sen. Gore had crossed party lines to support President Bush’s policy in Iraq.

The Clinton Gore Administration continued the policy of sanctions on Iraq, along with a “no fly zone” to keep the Iraq air force from flights over the Kurdish north of Iraq. The “no fly zone” was enforced by retaliatory bombing raids. President Clinton ordered hundreds of bombing raids in Iraq during his time in office.

President Clinton also ordered U.S. Bombers to take part in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia had not attacked the United States; the bombing was a “humanitarian intervention” with unclear military objectives and too many non-military targets.

At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Al Gore explained that he chose Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate for Vice-President because Lieberman crossed party lines in 1991 to support President Bush’s policy in Iraq. Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate as the Gore/Lieberman ticket was defeated. In 2002 Sen. Joe Lieberman voted to authorize President George W Bush to undertake military action in Iraq.

His vote for the first Iraq War and his loyal support through eight years of the Clinton policy of bombing Iraq and Yugoslavia show Al Gore was not a peace candidate.

IS HILARY CLINTON A PEACE CANDIDATE?

Sen. Kaine is correct that the election of George W Bush resulted in a disastrous war in Iraq. Yet Al Gore supported the policy of military intervention in the Middle East.

Sen. Kaine does not acknowledge Democrat responsibility for the passage of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in 2002, legal basis for the second Iraq War.

The Senate in 2002 included 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 1 Independent. The AUMF needed support from Democrats and Republicans. Blinded by party loyalty, 48 Republicans voted Yes; they needed 3 Democrat Senators to pass it. They got 29.

29 Democrat Senators voted for Bush’s war in Iraq. Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Joe Lieberman all voted for the Iraq War.

In 2000 there were strong third party candidates for U.S. Senate in only 2 states. In California, a Green Party candidate, a Libertarian and 3 more candidates received a total of more than 851,000 votes; Sen. Feinstein was re-elected.

In Washington State, Maria Cantwell was elected with less than 49% of the vote; a Libertarian candidate received 65,000 votes, and was blamed for the Republican loss. Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Cantwell, both Democrats, voted for the Iraq War that George Bush wanted.

Sen. Jim Jeffords (Ind-VT) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (Rep-R.I.) both voted No. If all 50 Democrats had voted No, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force would have lost, 52 to 48. Sen. Kaine invokes the disaster of the Iraq War, then asks you to vote for Hilary Clinton, who voted to authorize that war.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN FOR ANTIWAR POLICY

Hilary Clinton did not give up her support for interventionism when she became Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton ha supported intervention in Libya and Syria, with the best motives. Muamar Gaddafi was an oppressive dictator, and Bashar al-Assad has undertaken violent repression to maintain a hold on autocratic power.

In Libya, the aftermath of the revolution is chaos, replacement of everyday repression with everyday violence. The most likely end to chaos will come with the seizure of power by a new oppressive regime, probably allied with extremists in Libya and beyond.

In Syria the Assad regime backed by Russia has resorted to extreme levels of violence to suppress all opposition groups. The more extreme opposition groups have grown stronger and more violent. U.S. strategy includes supplying guns to “moderate” rebel groups, but our weapons have gone directly to allies of Al Qaida; ISIS gets our weapons indirectly, by defeating rebel groups that we supply, and taking what they have.

Gary Johnson does not have the answer for how to end the human tragedy in Aleppo, and in Syria as a whole. President Obama does not have the answer either, nor does Secretary of State John Kerry. Their answers in the past helped create the chaos and tragedy that we see today.

For the foresseable future, Syria will be engulfed in a civil war pitting extremist groups against a repressive regime. As the violence escalates, each side will blame the other. The winner will either maintain an oppressive regime, or institute a new repressive regime.

Gary Johnson and The Libertarian Party call for an end to the Bush/Clinton policy of intervention in the Middle East. If you agree with Sen. Kaine that the Iraq War was a disaster, vote against Hilary Clinton and the other bipartisan politicians that made it happen. Vote Libertarian for Gary Johnson if you don’t want to elect a supporter of Bush’s war of choice in Ir\aq.

For more information, go to www.JohnsonWeld2016.com

SPOILER ALERT: Gary Johnson & Bill Weld Don’t Plan to Throw the Election

People are unhappy. Many feel insecure and are unsatisfied with their options in life. Many are worried about their future and their children’s future, and they are dissatisfied with the country’s leaders, and those who want to be leaders.

Widespread dissatisfaction with much of the record of the last two Presidents has driven Donald Trump into first place in the Republican contest. Trump benefited from his celebrity status and unequaled name recognition. He benefited more from the failure of his opponents to break out of their narrow ideological factions.

Despite his recognized status as presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump has very high negative ratings among the population at large, and many Republicans are uncomfortable with his views, his character, and many of his past actions.

THE CONTENT OF HIS CHARACTER

Prominent conservatives have called for the defeat of Donald Trump, so that that the conservative movement is not tainted by the actions of a President Trump.

George Will hopes that Trump will lose every state. P.J. O’Rourke has written that he will vote for Hilary Clinton, who is evil in an ordinary way, rather than Trump, who is evil in new and unpredictable ways.

Despite the fact that he has never held government office, Donald Trump has presided over four bankruptcies.

Trump calls Mitt Romney a loser, but he shares the Romney tendency to take more than one side on any given issue, often in a serial manner.

Donald Trump supported the Iraq War in 2004. Now, 12 years later, he calls it a disaster. Good. He has learned, as millions of Americans have learned – including John Kerry, Bill Weld and, maybe, Hilary Clinton, that the war they backed has made America less secure, less free and less prosperous.

More recently, Trump criticized President Obama for being slow to intervene in Libya. Now, we have seen what a fiasco our Libya policy has become, and Trump is blasting Obama for going into Libya.

Trump was for gun control, now he is against it. He was pro-choice, now he has said that woman who gets an abortion must be punished. He has probably changed his view on that as well.

Donald Trump is against Obamacare. Trump has proposed, instead, that America adopt a “single-payer” form of socialized medicine. OK, Mitt Romney did not go that far. He has never advocated for single-payer socialized medicine. On principle he stops with the state level forerunner of Obamacare that he implemented in Massachusetts – Romneycare.

Donald Trump has remained steadfast in his support for eminent domain – the compulsory sale of private property, ostensibly for public benefit. Often, only part of the public benefits. As a developer, Donald Trump has benefited from the use of eminent domain. Sometimes a Trump development was the “public benefit” used to justify an eminent domain taking. In late May, he restated his belief in the importance of eminent domain, noting that the Keystone Pipeline could not be built without it.

Donald Trump has denounced Edward Snowden, who exposed the federal government spying on millions of Americans. Trump called for “executing the traitor.”

Aside from his consistent advocacy of eminent domain, Trump’s many policy shifts add to a perception of instability, highlighting concerns about his character. For many conservatives and independents, even if he moves, in his constant shifts, toward acceptable policy positions, the character issue will remain.

AN HONORABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR REPUBLICANS

As RNC Chair Reince Priebus calls for unity behind Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee, an unusual number of prominent Republicans, including office-holders and donors, have refused to commit to supporting The Donald.

The Libertarian Party has nominated two former Governors with records of balancing budgets, cutting taxes, and speaking out in support of personal freedom. As America faces a growing burden of government debt – on track to reach 20 trillion dollars- Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have more experience dealing with fiscal issues than Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton.

The Wall Street Journal has called the Libertarian ticket an “Honorable Alternative for Republicans.”

Gary Johnson was elected Governor of New Mexico as a Republican in 1994, winning in a state where Democrats constitute the majority of voters. He balanced the budget every year, pushed through and signed 14 tax cuts, and left a billion dollar surplus in the state treasury. His successor, Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat, gives credit to Johnson for leaving the state government in good financial health, and making possible the massive tax cut that Richardson pushed through in 2003, when every other Governor in the US was promoting a tax hike or facing a deficit.

Bill Richardson signed up David Harris as his top fiscal adviser, after Harris had served as head of the Finance and Administration Department under Governor Johnson. Richardson notes that “Harris and Johnson had tried unsuccessfully to cut personal income taxes over two terms in office.” Richardson, as a Democrat, was able to get the Democrat majority in the legislature to support the tax cuts that Gary Johnson’s fiscal responsibility had made possible. (Between Worlds, 2005, page 293)

Gary Johnson had also promoted school choice through a voucher system, but was unsuccessful in getting the legislature to go along with this.

In 1999, after winning re-election with 55% of the vote, Governor Johnson came out for ending marijuana prohibition. He was the highest ranking elected official to support legalization of marijuana, soon joined by Jesse Ventura, Independent Governor of Minnesota. Gary Johnson has remained a high-profile supporter of legalizing marijuana, and he has campaigned in several states in support of marijuana initiatives.

William Weld was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 1990, defeating John Silber, a neoconservative Democrat close to drug czar William Bennett.

Governor Weld balanced the budget every year without borrowing, and pushed through and signed 9 tax cuts. Weld signed the first state-level Medical Marijuana law in the United States. In 1994 Governor Weld was re-elected with 71% of the vote, defeating Mark Roosevelt, great-grandson of Theodore Roosevelt.

Governor Johnson and Governor Weld showed in practice a commitment to fiscal conservatism, tax relief and free market economics. In New Mexico and Massachusetts this record of fiscal conservatism attracted votes from independents and Democrats as well as the small Republican bloc in each state.

LIBERTARIANS OFFER A CHOICE FOR ALL AMERICANS

The Libertarian commitment to fiscal responsibility and free market economy should appeal to conservatives fed up with the big government legacy of George W Bush, and to Republicans worried about Donald Trump’s character and policies.

Libertarians back personal freedom as well, in contrast to the social conservative politicians who dominate the Republican Party. Yet there are conservative intellectuals and Republican voters who agree with libertarians on issues of personal freedom.

Libertarians support the legalization of marijuana and an end to the War on Drugs. National Review has long supported this position. In 1996 Sen. Barry Goldwater (ret) endorsed Arizona’s Medical Marijuana initiative.

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld support a woman’s right to control her life, her health and medical decisions; both support a woman’s right to choose an abortion, as did Sen. Barry Goldwater. Millions of Republican voters are pro-choice, and have often voted for anti-choice candidates in order to oppose Democrat tax & spend policies. Now, pro-choice Republicans can vote Libertarian and support freedom across the board.

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld oppose the Bush-Clinton policy of military intervention in the Middle East. They also oppose the Bush policy, backed by Trump, of using torture in the interrogation of suspected terrorists.

Libertarian views on marijuana, woman’s right to choose, and peace should appeal to many Democrats and independents – some who have voted for Bernie Sanders, who is pro-choice, supports legal marijuana, and opposed the Iraq War. Others agree with Sanders on these issues, but can’t support his extremist calls for more government spending and higher taxes. These Democrats will have a choice in November – Gary Johnson on 50 state ballots.

GARY JOHNSON & BILL WELD DON’T PLAN TO THROW THE ELECTION

As the election approaches, Trump supporters and professional Republican operatives will charge that the Libertarian ticket will be “spoilers” – taking votes from Republicans and “throwing the election.”

Do Libertarians want Donald Trump to lose? For the sake of America, yes! That is why we are running Gary Johnson for President against Trump. We are also running Gary Johnson against Hilary Clinton. In 50 states Libertarians will give voters a chance to simultaneously reject Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. Republicans who vote for Johnson & Weld will be joined by independents and Democrats, much like the coalitions in New Mexico and Massachusetts that overcame dominance by the Democratic Party to elect Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as Governors.

The election is more than 5 months away – plenty of time for Donald Trump to embarrass himself and drive away voters. Gary Johnson on the ballot in 50 states means that you can reject Donald Trump without supporting big government Democrats. If the Trump campaign collapses under the weight of his dangerous incoherence, his race-baiting and his reliance on insult as his main form of argument, Gary Johnson will provide a real alternative to the Democrats in 2016.

If you vote Libertarian in 2016 you will help to build a party committed to the free market, limited government and personal freedom. A party that can provide a choice for Americans if the Republicans and Democrats nominate candidates who are “dangerously incoherent” or just plain crooked politicians committed to everyday statism. And if the voters elect a “dangerously incoherent demogogue” or just a plain everyday statist, a big vote for the Libertarian ticket can ensure there will be a coherent opposition.

Boaz:”A Libertarian Ticket Sane Republicans Can Get Behind”

Lots of Republicans are looking for a sane alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and it looks like the Libertarian Party has just given it to them, now that former Massachusetts Governor William Weld has joined former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson’s ticket.

It’s the first time two governors have shared a presidential ticket since Republicans Thomas E. Dewey of New York and Earl Warren of California narrowly lost to incumbent President Harry Truman in 1948.

Many observers think experience as a governor is the best preparation for the job of president. Johnson and Weld would bring 14 years of gubernatorial experience to the White House, while neither Trump nor Clinton has ever served as governor or even mayor.

Johnson and Weld were both elected and re-elected in Democratic states, and dealt with heavily Democratic legislatures.

Neither Johnson nor Weld is a purist libertarian, and both have come under fire within the Libertarian Party, which will nominate its candidates in Orlando over Memorial Day weekend. Johnson displeased many libertarians (including me) by saying that government should ban discrimination on the basis of religion, including requiring a Christian baker to bake and decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding. Weld has supported some gun control measures.

But they will present a clear alternative to Trump and Clinton: strong and coherent fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, drug-policy reform, criminal-justice reform, reining in mass surveillance, ending executive abuse of power, and a prudent foreign policy that is neither promiscuously interventionist nor erratic and bombastic — all grounded in a philosophical commitment to liberty and limited government.

Full Commentary by David Boaz @ The Cato Institute http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/libertarian-ticket-sane-republicans-can-get-behind

Krayewski:”The 1994 Crime Bill Was A Liberal Policy”

Bill Clinton has become part of the 2016 election news cycle once again. He confronted protesters associated with Black Lives Matter who were denouncing the 1994 crime bill, a major piece of legislation that instituted a lot of the policies that drove over-criminalization and hyper-incarceration in the last twenty years.

“You’re defending the people who kill the lives you say matter,” Clinton told the protesters, attempting to link tough on crime policies (which are popular in urban area and among urban Democratic politicians despite the mainstream rhetoric) to crime reduction.

Twenty years ago the 1994 crime bill passed with broad support. It has become an issue this election cycle given increased interest in issues of police and criminal justice reform. Yet arguments over the crime bill have avoided engaging the uncomfortable truth about the role of bigger government in promoting police violence in favor of rhetorical acrobatics.

further down, the post continues:
It matters. One revisionist tact taken with the 1994 crime bill is that it was never supported by liberals. Salon, for example, insists Bill Clinton’s “right-leaning New Democrat policy record is a bad fit for today’s liberal politics.” Clinton blames Republicans for forcing him to add tougher provisions to the bill. Yet the 1994 crime bill went through Congress when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. It was supported by Democrats across the political spectrum, from center-left to hard left. Every member of the leadership of the progressive-leaning Congressional Black Caucus voted for the 1994 crime bill, even as their chairman at the time has now tried to deny he voted in favor of it. 75 percent of House Democrats voted for the bill. They were joined by 46 Republicans and one Independent, the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.

Full post by Ed Krayewski @ Reason Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/08/the-1994-crime-bill-was-a-liberal-policy