Tim Kaine’s Bogus Antiwar Appeal

Posted on by Standard 1

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

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Loretta Sanchez for U.S. Senate

Posted on by Standard 1

California’s recently implemented “Top Two” all party primary system has created an unusual situation in this year’s contest for U.S. Senate. With Senator Barbara Boxer retiring, voters selected as their top two candidates for November two Democrats. California Attorney-General Kamala Harris, endorsed by the California Democratic Party, faces a challenge from Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who represents Anaheim, Santa Ana, Orange and Garden Grove in the U.S. Congress.

Republicans and Libertarians are shut out of this Senate race by the top two primary; many plan to skip this race in November. But Independents, Republicans and Libertarians should consider Rep. Sanchez because of her record in Congress.

Rep. Sanchez voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The AUMF provided a legal justification for George W Bush’s war on Iraq. The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was justified by claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and claims of ties to Al Qaida. Both claims have been proved false. The war has resulted in nearly 5000 American casualties, more than 40,000 wounded Americans, and trillions of dollars in new federal debt to pay for a war of choice.

In voting against a pre-emptive war on Iraq, Rep. Sanchez split with many leaders of the Democratic Party. Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Joe Lieberman all voted in favor of Bush’s war.

In the wake of the 9/11 terror attack, The Bush administration proposed the Patriot Act, to provide new powers to the federal government to investigate questionable activity, in the hopes of stopping future attacks. Opponents, including Rep. Ron Paul, warned of the threat to the freedom of all Americans. Rep. Loretta Sanchez voted against the Patriot act, along with Ron Paul and a minority of Congress. Sen. Hilary Clinton joined with 48 other Democrats and 49 Republicans and one Independent to pass the Patriot Act in the Senate.

In the last year of the Bush Administration, a speculative bubble fed by low interest rates maintained by the Federal Reserve, posed a threat to major financial institutions that took part in the bubble. President Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson proposed a $700 billion tax funded bailout of major banks. Rep. Loretta Sanchez voted against the bailout of the banks, again breaking with Democrat leaders including Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden and others who voted to give $700 billion in taxpayers money to badly managed banks.

In her votes against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the Bank Bailout, Rep. Loretta Sanchez sided with Rep. Ron Paul, and voted in opposition to Sen. Hilary Clinton. Rep. Loretta Sanchez is the best choice in California’s Senate race. We hope that Libertarians, Republicans and Independents will join with antiwar Democrats to elect Loretta Sanchez on November 8, 2016.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

California NORML Explains Adult Use of Marijuana Act

Posted on by Standard Reply

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act is a marijuana legalization initiative that has qualified for the November, 2016 California ballot. AUMA will be listed on the ballot as Proposition 64.

AUMA is an elaborate, 62-page initiative which writes hundreds of new provisions and regulations into state law. Its basic thrust is to:

(1) allow adults 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to six plants for personal use;

(2) regulate and tax the production, manufacture, and sale of marijuana for adult use; and

(3) rewrite criminal penalties so as to reduce the most common marijuana felonies to misdemeanors and allow prior offenders to petition for reduced charges.

AUMA’s regulatory provisions are largely patterned on the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), recently passed by the legislature and effective Jan 1, 2016. Licenses for medical and adult-use would be distinct, but managed by the same agency in the Department of Consumer Affairs (the legislature and agency may move to consolidate these two systems if AUMA passes).

Due to its extraordinary length and complexity, AUMA contains a number of glitches and inconsistencies that will have to be ironed out by the courts or the legislature. It also includes a number of restrictions and oversights that many users find objectionable (for example, it makes it illegal to consume in any public place except for specifically licensed premises; continues to let local governments ban medical marijuana cultivation and sales; bans vaporization in non-smoking areas; and imposes an unduly high, 15% + tax increase on medical marijuana). Fortunately, Section 10 of the act allows for most provisions to be modified by the legislature.

Full analysis by California NORML @ http://www.canorml.org/news/Cal_NORML_Guide_to_AUMA.html

Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Does it Matter?

Posted on by Standard 2

In October of 2002, right before off-year elections for Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. Not a formal declaration of war as required by The Constitution, the AUMF was used as the legal basis for a massive WMD attack – 2700 Tomahawk missiles and 20,000 precision guided weapons – followed by an invasion by U.S. infantry and armored divisions.

President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and other Republican leaders pushed for war on Iraq, with claims that the Hussein regime provided support for Islamic terrorists, like those who carried out the attack on the World Trade Center. The Bush team also claimed that the Iraqi government possessed “weapons of mass destruction.” Administration spokesmen defined WMD to include atomic weapons, but also chemical and biological weapons. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, admitting uncertainty about whether Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, warned that “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

The U.S. invasion of Iraq resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians losing their lives, more being wounded, and the destruction of many neighborhoods and public facilities. More than 4000 American soldiers and contractors lost their lives, and more than 40,000 Americans sustained life-changing injuries. The cost of the war to American taxpayers continues to mount, along with interest on the money borrowed to cover the costs that exceed the tax revenues collected.

In the lead-up to the vote on the AUMF, President Bush along with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John McCain and others used the Republican Party to push for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, a country which had not attacked the United States. When Congress passed the AUMF in October 2002, an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted in favor. Even so, Bush needed votes from Democrats to pass the bill.

At the time of the vote, the U.S. Senate included 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 1 Independent. 48 Republican Senators voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force; without Democrat votes, it would have failed. Democrats split, with 29 voting yes, and 21 voting against war; 1 Republican and 1 Independent voted no, so the result was 77 yes, 23 no.

Democrats who voted for war with Iraq included Joseph Lieberman, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards and Sen. Hilary Clinton. If Senate Democrats had voted solidly in opposition to the AUMF, it would have stopped the military intervention in Iraq. Unless, of course, President Bush had authorized intervention with an unconstitutional executive order. By voting “Yes” Senator Clinton, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Biden and other Democrats provided the margin of victory for Ameican’s first pre-emptive war.

Senator Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War does matter. Clinton and other Senate Democrats provided votes needed for Bush to get his authorization for a pre-emptive attack, for a war that we continue to pay for.

Hilary Clinton’s support for the second war in Iraq is in line with Bill Clinton’s support for the first war against Iraq, undertaken in 1991 under leadership of President George H W Bush. Then Governor Bill Clinton was so committed to the Iraq War that he picked Sen. Al Gore for Vice-President specifically because he had voted for the war. After taking office as President, Bill Clinton maintained the policy of bombing Iraq to punish it for violations of the 1991 cease-fire; observors noted that when the media reported on Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton would order a bombing run over Iraq or Yugoslavia to divert people’s attention from his ongoing scandal.

Sen. Gore was so committed to the Iraq War that in 2000, as the nominee for President, he picked Sen. Joe Liebermann as his running mate because he too supported the Iraq War.

A vote for Hilary Clinton for President is a vote to continue the Bush/Clinton policy of military intervention in the Middle East. A vote for Gary Johnson, Libertarian for President, is a vote against international interventionism, and for a foreign policy of peace and free trade.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Tooley:”When Soviet Totalitarians Became American Allies”

Posted on by Standard 1

Three quarters of a century ago, on June 22, 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, an attack on the Soviet Union across a front 3,000 miles long. Barbarossa moved the war into its global stage. It prefigured the final alliance system. It moved the Final Solution to the industrial level of killing. It helped bring the United States into the war, and certainly opened the floodgates of “pre-Lend-Lease” from the United States to Stalin’s Russia. As Ralph Raico has pointed out, the presidential powers inherent in Lend-Lease amounted to one of the great expansions of power in American history. On this aspect, see Raico’s review essay on Justus Doenecke’s Storm on the Horizon, as well as Raico’s rethinking of FDR, in which addresses the character of Hopkins.

But apart from Raico, Doenecke, and other historians in the libertarian and Old Right revisionist tradition, and in spite of the enormous impact this single event has had on world history, what a bundle of historical misinformation and misunderstandings surround it! In essence, two totalitarians agreed to divide Europe. After nearly two years of relatively close cooperation in invasion, mass killing, deportations, and forced labor, the two great apostles of the state parted ways, largely because their long range territorial, strategic, and economic plans were mutually exclusive. They were both still totalitarians, both still mass murderers.

Yet this whole issue of Hitler and Stalin as two roads to the same total state had to wait, really, until the 1980s and early 1990s before any hint of historical comparisons reached the mainstream, meaning college textbooks, academe, popular history, etc. Even all those years later, even when specialists among mainstream historians knew very well that the research on Stalin portrayed a horrifying record, treatment of the Man of Steel in textbooks, in the news media almost always pulled punches.

The amazing thing is that during the Cold War, educated Americans could hold both images in their minds: “Uncle Joe” on the one hand, and the evil Cold War Stalin on the other. A truly Orwellian feat.
Full Commentary by T. Hunt Tooley on the Anniversary of the German invasion of Russia in 1941, @ The Mises Institute https://mises.org/blog/when-soviet-totalitarians-became-american-allies

Maas:”Former Associates of Rand Paul and Charles Koch Launch Non-interventionist Think Tank”

Posted on by Standard Reply

A team of libertarian and constitutionalist foreign policy experts have joined a team led by political activist Edward King in forming the Defense Priorities Foundation — a non-interventionist foreign policy think tank. King was the former national youth director for former Representative Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) 2012 presidential campaign and the COO of Concerned American Voters, a PAC that supported Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) failed 2016 Republican presidential campaign.

“We are just getting started,” King was quoted by Politico. “But one of the main things we want to accomplish is to expand the debate on foreign policy, which we think has been sorely lacking, especially for the last 10 or 15 years.”

“We are seeking support,” King continued, signaling out William P. Ruger, the new group’s senior advisor and foreign policy scholar, as “a tremendous asset.” Ruger, who is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, is the vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

Visitors to the Defense Priorities Foundation’s website are greeted by a bold headline that summarizes the new group’s goals: “A Strong Military to Ensure Security, Stability, and Peace.” The foundation’s mission statement reads:

To inform citizens, thought leaders, and policy makers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military — used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests — and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure American security.

Full article by Warren Maas @ The New American http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/23395-former-rand-paul-and-charles-koch-associates-launch-non-interventionist-think-tank

Shikha Dalmia:”Trump Is a Bellicose Fool Who’ll Make War, Not Love”

Posted on by Standard Reply

The world expected President Obama to bring peace. Instead, he made war. When this Nobel Peace Prize recipient leaves the Oval Office, he will have the dubious distinction of having served as the longest wartime president in the history of the United States.

Is it possible that the reverse would happen with Donald Trump if he gets elected? Would he bring peace when the world expects him to make war?

Some anti-war activists on both the right and the left hope so. They are kidding themselves.

Make no mistake: Trump’s bellicosity, hair-trigger temperament, disturbing tendency to see the world as “us versus them,” and, above all, his militant protectionism will mean more war, not less.

Full commentary by Shikha Dalmia @ Reason http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/07/trump-is-a-bellicose-fool-wholl-make-war

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

Posted on by Standard 1

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.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Muhammad Ali, Fighter for Peace

Posted on by Standard Reply

When you get to be my age, you notice that people you have known about all your life are dying on a regular basis. David Bowie, Prince, and now Muhammad Ali. This is not an obituary, but a brief tribute to someone who overcame obstacles that I have never had to face, made a life and career for himself, and was willing to put that life and that career in danger on behalf of a principle.

Born Cassius Clay, in 1964 he became a champ, and he became a Muslim, affiliated with America’s own Nation of Islam. Inspired by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, who taught Black Americans to love self and kind, over his life he showed his love for people of all races and colors. In the years after health problems ended his boxing career, he devoted himself to uplifting the poor and oppressed in America and the world through his own charitable activities.

In later years, health problems ended his fighting career. In his earlier life, a stand for principle put his career on hold, as he refused to be inducted into the U.S. Military. As a Muslim he did not feel an obligation to fight and die for a government that kept his own people from enjoying the benefits of freedom. As a human being he did not feel it to be right to go overseas and kill people that he did not know and could hardly have a grudge against.

In his most insightful monolog, comedian George Carlin noted that Muhammad Ali had sought a consciencious objector exemption from military service. Carlin said they denied his request because of his job – beating people up. But, he quoted Ali saying “I don’t kill people, that’s where I draw the line.”

Muhammad Ali was just as articulate about the issue. He noted that when he gets into the ring, he and his opponent hurt each other as a sport. But war is different. “In war the intention is to kill, kill, kill and keep on killing innocent people.”

In opposing war he undertook a humanitarian mission greater than the charity works that absorbed much of his later life. For refusing induction, he lost his title and was banned from boxing until the Supreme Court overturned his conviction for refusing to cooperate with the Selective Service System.

Before the draft became the issue, he was best known for his poetry, and what some considered egotistical blustering, when he proclaimed “I am the Greatest.” Those who met him in the ring often decided after the fact that he was “the Greatest.”

The Scots poet Robert Burns wrote many years ago “O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us,to see ourselves as others see us.” Muhammad Ali had a more powerful giftie; he got the world to see him as he saw himself. So I join with every other commenter today to say farewell to “The Greatest of All Time.”

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

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

Posted on by Standard Reply

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