The Real Target on January 6, 2021:The Constitution of the United States

On January 6, 2021, supporters of former President Donald J Trump engaged in an orgy of violence on the steps of the Capitol building, at the entrances to the Capitol building, and inside the Capitol building. But we know that the building was not the target, just collateral damage.

If you watched the news on January 6, on the following days, news specials about January 6, or the videos shown at the hearings of the January 6 Committee of the House of Representatives, you saw the Capitol building under attack. You also saw Capitol Police being physically attacked by Trump supporters. Prosecutors and police unions report that 91 Capitol Police officers were injured by pro-Trump rioters, along with 65 DC Police officers. Reports indicate officers were pushed down stairs, trampled by rioters, punched and run over in the stampede. Several officers died that day or after, from physical or psychological wounds sustained at the hands of Trump supporters. But police officers were not the target.

Capitol Police saw the threat to members of Congress, and moved members, including House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, other Republican members and the Democrat leaders and members. Senators and Representatives were moved to secure rooms in the Capitol, as at least one heroic Capitol Police officer teased rioters into following him as he moved away from where the members of Congress were taken.

Trump supporters shouted threats to members of Congress, announced their intention to kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and acted with the intent of intimidating Congress into refusing to certify the election of President Joseph Biden. The Congress of the United States, the most representative branch of the government, would appear to be the proximate targets of the Trump supporters who stormed the capitol.

Peaceful Transfer of Power

In 1797, the first President of the United States, George Washington, left the White House and returned to his plantation and distillery in Mount Vernon. After two terms, one more than he wanted to serve, he retired as the Chief Executive of the new federal government. He set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power that has been the cornerstone of the American Republic since then, unbroken up through and including 2017, when President Barack Obama left office and Donald J Trump took an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This peaceful transfer of power is known as “rotation in office.” When President Washington left office and turned the power over to John Adams, it was unusual in the world of its time. So unusual, that many in Europe who heard the news of the peaceful transfer of power, did not believe it. The writers of the U.S. Constitution expected it, and after Washington observed the new convention, every President who had served out his term, respected the Constitutional mandate to leave office, and allow his elected successor to take the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Every President who lost an election, surrendered the office, as required by the Constitution, until January 6, 2021.

The Real Target: The Constitution of the United States

When it was adopted in 1787, the Constitution of the United States provided for a government of limited powers. Article 1, Section 1 sets out the powers of the Congress of the United States, and the means of electing Congress. The Congress of the United States exists only because of The Constitution of the United States.

The same Constitution sets out the powers and responsibilities of The President of the United States, and instructs us on how The President shall be elected: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof shall direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress

By the end of the Civil War, each state had adopted a law providing that Electors would be chosen by direct popular vote. As early as 1832, every state except South Carolina had provided for a direct vote for electors. This history undermines the demand on election night 2020 by Mark Levin that Republican controlled legislatures appoint electors in states where the popular vote went for Biden. Still, the suggestion by Mark Levin indicates he understood that those states did cast their popular vote for Biden, not Trump.

The Constitution – the 12th Amendment – provides that the electors of each state shall meet in their state to cast votes for President and Vice-President, with the votes to transmitted sealed to the President of the Senate, who shall count the votes in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives. On January 6, Vice-President Pence began to count the votes, and in a Constitutional but unprecedented manner, objections were laid to the electoral votes of Arizona and Pennsylvania. In both cases Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas joined with several Representatives to lodge objections, and the Congress adjourned to consider the objections.

Even as Trump supporters in Congress worked to prevent certification of the election that Donald Trump lost, Trump supporters outside Congress undertook an assault, targeting all the members of Congress, including the Trump supporters. The certification of the electoral vote count was mandated by The Constitution, and the right to make objections was legal under the term of the Electoral Count Act. The attack on Congress was an attack on The Constitution of the United States – plain and simple.

The Evidence and the Proof

The physical destruction of parts of the Capitol Building, the broken glass, the smashed in doors, the nearly 160 injured Capitol Police and DC Police, and the deaths of several officers – these were the evidence for and the proof of the attack on The Constitution of the United States.

Not so long ago, Republicans and conservatives claimed to be defenders of the Constitution. The President of the United States, and the Trump supporters in Congress all took an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend The Constitution of the United States. President Trump violated his Oath many times, most publicly on January 6. Those members of Congress who have defended the attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters have also violated their Oath, and shown how empty are their claims to be defenders of The Constitution .

Let us treat Donald Trump and the Trump supporters in Congress with the same respect they have shown America’s founding Document, The Constitution of the United States.

(by Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Historic Libertarian Plank on Women’s Rights

In 1982 the Libertarian National Convention added a plank on Women’s Rights to the Permanent Platform of The Libertarian Party. This plank was kept in the platform without change until the Libertarian National Convention of 1994.


“We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.”

“Recognizing that each person must be the sole and absolute owner of his or her own body, we support the right of women to make a personal choice regarding the termination of pregnancy. We oppose the undermining of the right via laws requiring consent of the pregnant woman’s parents, consent of the prospective father, waiting periods, or compulsory provision of indoctrination on medical risks or fetal development. However, we also oppose all tax funding for abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. We also condemn state-mandated abortions.”

The plank on Women’s Rights was in the Libertarian Platform in 1988 when Ron Paul accepted the nomination for President of The Libertarin Party.

Added Paragraph in 1994

In 1994 the heading of the Plank was changed to 19. Women’s Rights and Abortion The plank was expanded by adding one additional paragraph:

“We oppose the fetal protection doctrine under which the state could require prenatal testing, require Caesarian births, require fetal surgery, require force feeding of the mother, jail pregnant substance abusers, bar home births, and bar pregnant women from working in unhealthy places and which would hold a woman legally liable — because of her diet or personal behavior — for having a damaged or deformed child. Under this doctrine, women could also be held liable for not aborting a damaged or deformed fetus.”

The Libertarian Party Plank on Women’s Rights and Abortion, as adopted in 1982 and expanded in 1994 provide’s a clear statement of the Libertarian Position on a Woman’s right to control her own body and her own life. In 1996 and subsequent conventions, the plank was modified. It provided less clarity, but The Libertarian Party remained on record in support of Freedom of Choice for Women until the Libertarian National Convention in 2022.

At the 2022 National Convention, the organized forces of the “Mises” Caucus voted to eliminate the plank altogether. A future convention will have the power to adopt a plank on the issue of Women’s Rights and Abortion.

Restore the 1994 Plank on Women’s Rights and Abortion

The 1994 Plank is a clear statement that mainstream Libertarians can united behind. It is one of the few planks in The Libertarian Platform that is in agreement with a majority of American voters. Libertarians should work to restore the 1994 Plank on Women’s Rights and Abortion.

Source for Plank: 1986 Platform (clearest print of 1982 plank)

1994 Plank:

The full text of the Permanent Platform of The Libertarian Party, as modified every two years can be found @

(by Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Taiwan: the First Chinese Republic

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has received criticism from Republicans, Democrats and others for visiting Taiwan. Some have mentioned the insult to China. More thougtful critics have suggested her trip would cause more trouble for Taiwan, by waving a “red flag” at China.(Irony unintentional)

I want to commend the Speaker for including Taiwan in her Asia trip. She visited a number of countries in Asia; Taiwan is a trading partner with the USA, a source of immigrants, and a vacation spot for Americans, so a visit by a member of the US Congress is appropriate for maintaining friendly relations with a true friend of America.

It is true that the US no longer maintains formal diplomatic relations with the government that rules Taiwan. But everyone recognizes that Taiwan exists. Even the People’s Republic of China, which benefits from billions of dollars in direct investment by Taiwan companies, and which actively trades with Taiwan, recognizes that Taiwan exists.

Taiwan has survived many jolts in the past 51 years. It has survived President Richard Nixon’s trip to Beijing, and his friendliness with Mao Zedong. Taiwan has survived the diplomatic recognition of the PRC by the administration of President Jimmy Carter.

Taiwan has survived the overtures toward an alliance with the PRC by President Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Taiwan has survived the elevation by President George H W Bush of the People’s Republic to an equal member of the New World Order.

Taiwan has survived the rush by American and European countries to invest in mainland China. This rush was motivated by the low wage level in People’s China after decades of Communist rule. And Taiwan has survived as the People’s Republic has annexed and come to dominate Hong Kong and Macao.

The Taiwan Miracle

In normal terms, “Taiwan Miracle” refers to the Taiwan Economic Miracle, a period of rapid economic growth at the beginning of the 1960s. Taiwan grew rapidly alongside Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea, the 4 countries referred to as the “Asian Tigers.”

Taiwan has other miracles. Its economic strength provided the basis for the miracle of Taiwan’s survival, referred to above. And the other Taiwan miracle is the implementation of competitive democratic elections in the 1980s and 1990s, ending the one-party rule of the mainland refugees in the Kuomintang.

They Called Themselves Republics

China has proclaimed itself a republic twice. In 1911, when Kuomintang (KMT) – the National People’s Party, took power, it proclaimed the Republic of China and adopted a Constitution providing for a President and a National Congress to be indirectly elected. Democratic as the Constitution appeared, the reality was that from 1911 to 1949, China was under the one party rule of the KMT, with opposition groups harassed and oppressed.

From 1921 to 1927, the Communist Party collaborated with the Kuomintang, with Communists welcomed into the membership ranks of the KMT. The KMT was a full affiliate of the Communist International; Chiang Kai-Shek represented the KMT on the Executive Committee of the Communist International.

After the suppression of Communists and labor unionists in Shanghai in 1927, the Communist Party went into opposition, eventually engaging in violent revolutionary insurrection against the KMT regime. After a brief United Front of the two parties in opposition to the Japanese invasion, the civil war resumed in 1946, with the Communist Party taking power in 1949.

The Communist Party shot its way into power, as the KMT attempted to defend its power with its own guns. The People’s Republic of China, allied with the USSR, was established by violence, not democratic elections. Since taking power in 1949, The Communist Party of China has never allowed legal opposition, and illegal dissent has been ruthlessly suppressed. So neither Chinese Republic really qualifies as such under the American understanding.

Republic of Singapore

There is another Chinese polity that claims to be a Republic. Since 1965, the island based city-state Singapore has been independent as the Republic of Singapore. Even before independence, Singapore had a ruling party. The People’s Action Party has ruled continuously since the establishment of home rule for the Singapore colony in 1959. Since Independence the PAP has dominated the legislature with overwhelming majorities, and the President has always been a member of the PAP.

The policies of the PAP which have promoted economic growth through a regulated market economy are popular with many people. The PAP control of the government has given it control of Singapore’s media, either through direct government ownership (in violation of the market economy) or very active censorship of the media.

Opposition parties have been subject to (non-violent) harassment by supporters of the PAP. In several cases, opposition candidates who have won elections have been subject to post-election harassment, even arrest. There has never been rotation in office in Singapore, peaceful or otherwise.

The First Chinese Republic

In the 1980s, after decades of rule by the Kuomintang, run by mainland exiles, several leaders of Taiwan undertook a transition to democracy.

After the death of Chiang Kai-shek in 1975, his son Chiang Ching-kuo became Chair of the Kuomintang in Taiwan. He began reforms in the 1980s to allow more civil liberties and the beginning of democratic participation in the government by the Taiwanese people.

While the KMT remained dominant during the Presidency of Chiang Ching-kuo, the Democratic Progressive Party continued to grow, with less harassment by authorities. The DPP, composed of Taiwan natives, advocated a clear statement of Taiwan independence, while the KMT continued to claim to be part of China; it continued to claim, in a pro-forma way, that it was the legitimate authority in the mainland.

Chiang Ching-kuo picked Lee Teng-hui as his Vice-President and successor in 1984, and Lee was elected by the Congress to the post. Lee Teng-hui was born in Taiwan during the Japanese occupation, and was fluent in Japanese, as well as the Hokkien dialect spoken by 70% of the population of Taiwan. He became the first native born Taiwanese to be elected Vice-President.

On December 25, 1985, Chiang Ching-kuo spoke on Constitution Day about the Presidential succession: The first question is the succession to the presidency. This sort of question only exists in despotic and totalitarian countries. It does not exist in the Republic of China, based on the Constitution. So the next President will be elected in accordance with constitutional procedure by the National Assembly on behalf of the people.

After the death of Chiang Ching-kuo in 1988, the Congress of the Republic of China elected Lee Teng-hui President of the ROC. The first Taiwan-born President, he prepared the way for a multi-party system. He was the last President of the ROC chosen by Congress, and in May 1991. President Lee headed a drive to eliminate the emergency laws adopted by the KMT to deal with the Communist Menace – laws which had been abused to maintain a KMT monopoly of power.

In 1996 Taiwan held direct elections for the first time. Seeing that this would strengthen Taiwan by increasing the loyalty of the population toward the ROC, military forces of the PRC conducted missile tests in the waters surrounding Taiwan, and other military exercizes off the coast of Fujian province. In 1996, Lee Teng-hui became the first President directly elected by the people of Taiwan.

Rotation in Office

President Lee supported the Taiwanese Localization Movement, which emphasized Taiwanese identity, in contrast to the China-centric doctrines promoted in Taiwan by Chiang Kai-shek. This, and further political liberalization, prepared the way for the elections of 2000, which were unprecedented in any Chinese polity.

The Democratic Progressive Party had been formed in 1986, a year before the end of martial law. President Chiang Ching-kuo did not suppress it, and it grew based on its appeals to the Taiwanese people. After legalization, it affiliated with the Liberal International, and developed a platform defending civil liberties and the independence of Taiwan.

In 2000,Chen Shui-bien, candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party was elected President, with a plurality vote in a three way race. Then the miracle: the incumbent President affiliated with the KMT, left office and let the newly elected Chen Shui-bien take office as President. This was the first time in Chinese history that a Chinese polity experienced peaceful rotation in office. Since 2000, every election in Taiwan has been accompanied by a peaceful rotation in office, as incumbents surrender their power to those elected to succeed them.

An American Principle

Rotation in office is a fundamental principle of the American republic, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. It is true that until the accession of Caesar to leadership of the Roman Republic, Rome had elections for Consul, and when new Consuls were elected, they peacefully took office. After the end of the Roman Republic, it would be nearly two millenia before any European country had a peaceful rotation in office.

In America, the first President, George Washington was ready to retire after one term, but gave in to demands that he accept a second term in office. At the end of his second term, in 1797, Washington retired to Mount Vernon, and devoted his time to his plantation, his distillery, and other business interests. In retiring from office, George Washington proved the strength of the new Republic and its Constitution, and set the precedent for peaceful rotation in office, a precedent unbroken until the events of January 6, 2021.

As America faces a threat to its Constitution and its Republic from the forces loyal to former President Donald J Trump, those of us who defend the Republic need allies and friends. What better friend to our Republic than the first Chinese polity to move beyond the Chinese history of one-party rule, the first Chinese polity to institutionalize rotation in office?

Long Live Free Taiwan! And, we can hope, Long Live Freedom and a Free America!

(by Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Russia Has Blocked 138K Websites Since Ukraine Invasion

Ben Kolde / unsplash

Russian authorities have blocked or deleted some 138,000 websites since Moscow launched its invasion of neighboring Ukraine in February, the country’s prosecutor general said Monday. 

Following over 300 requests from prosecutors, Russia’s communications watchdog Roskomnadzor has censored thousands of websites in a bid to combat “fake news,” according to prosecutor general Igor Krasnov. 

“After the start of the special military operation, we have strengthened our counteraction to the spread of calls for extremism and terrorism, mass riots and fake news on the internet,” Krasnov told the Kommersant business daily. NEWSMoscow Times’ Russian Service Blocked Over War CoverageREAD MORE

The Kremlin has sought to strictly control the narrative of the war at home since invading Ukraine on Feb. 24.

Many of the blocked websites have criticized the war or in Ukraine or referred to it as a “war” or “invasion” rather than the Kremlin’s preferred term “special military operation.”

Websites publishing information contradicting Moscow’s versions of events in Ukraine, which it considers “fake news,” are also subject to being blocked.

Criticizing the war or sharing non-Kremlin-approved information about it are both punishable under new laws passed shortly after the invasion.

All of Russia’s independent media has either been blocked or shut down since February, with many journalists fleeing the country to escape prosecution. 

Russian authorities have also outlawed Facebook and Instagram as “extremist” organizations since the war began and restricted access to Twitter.

Source: The Moscow Times

Viktor Orbán Flatters Republicans

In his triumphant speech Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Dallas, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán played one of the oldest—and most morally grotesque—rhetorical cards in the central European diplomatic playbook: comparing the domestic political opponents of his audience with the totalitarian murderers who once subjugated his homeland.

“The Hungarians defeated communism, which was forced on us by Soviet troops and arms. It took a while. We began our fight in 1956 and won in 1990, but we did it,” Europe’s longest-serving prime minister said. “But communists are tough to beat. They rose from their ashes, came together with the liberals, and come back all around the world stronger than ever. If somebody has doubts whether progressive liberals and communists are the same, just ask us Hungarians. We fought them both, and I can tell you they are the same.”

The claim that communists have come back “stronger than ever” would surely be news to the three dozen or so modern-day countries whose populations in 1988 were still under the iron boot. Only in China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba have communist parties retained their monopoly on power. One could perhaps make the argument that current and former communists, after allowing for quasi-capitalistic economic activity, now have more internal strength and financial resources in China and post-Soviet Russia than they did in 1990, but that’s not an argument that Orbán, the best friend of both Moscow and Beijing within the European Union and NATO, is eager to make.

The conflation of contemporary Western lefties with former East bloc totalitarians, a favorite dinner-party trick of such perennially overrated post-communist politicians as former Czech President Václav Klaus, serves the dual purpose of flattering American conservatives that their parochial political concerns (about, say, gay marriage) are imbued with internationally heroic heft, while diverting attention away from the less seemly (and less traditionally conservative) record of the speaker.

Addressing a CPAC audience, Orbán made sure to shout out the conference’s patron saint: “We know what we have Ronald Reagan to thank for.” But that’s a considerably different song than he was singing two weeks ago in front of an audience of ethnic Hungarians in the Transylvania region of neighboring Romania.

There, in a speech that generated controversy for other reasons, the Hungarian actually compared Reagan to communists: “Historically, the Americans have had the ability to pick out what they identify as an evil empire and to call on the world to stand on the right side of history—a phrase which bothers us a little, as this is what the communists always said.”

Full Post by Matt Welch @ Reason

Kansas Voters Defend Freedom

In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade and ending Constitutional protections for abortion rights, conservative politicians in many states have moved to pass laws prohibiting abortion within their states. In some states, legislatures passed “trigger laws” before the Court ruling – laws that would go into effect if the Court ruled to end Roe v Wade.

In other states, legislators moved right after the ruling in Dobbs to pass new laws against abortion. And in some states conservatives relied on laws passed before Roe v Wade, but never repealed, which were then invoked.

In Kansas Republican politicians took a more extreme step. They qualified a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would declare that the Kansas Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion, given the state government the power to prosecute individuals involved in abortion, and stated that the Kansas government is not required to fund abortions.

In 2019 the Kansas Supreme Court had ruled that the state Constitution protected a woman’s access to abortion. The Kansas Bill of Rights states that “all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights.” The Court ruled that this clause includes “a woman’s right to make decisions about her body.”

In response the legislature voted to put the amendment – titled “Value Them Both” on the state ballot. The proposition was scheduled for a vote during the state-wide primary election, August 2, 2022. It was believed that some hot contests in the Republican primary would bring out many conservative voters; with few contested Democrat primaries, it was believed that turnout by moderate and liberal voters would be lower. It was also believed that non-affiliated voters – the largest part of the Kansas electorate – would not vote because they could not vote in candidate contests in the primary.

The Value Them Both amendment was backed by Catholic dioceses throughout Kansas, protestant evangelical groups, along with numerous opportunistic Republican politicians. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom ( was organized as a nonpartisan coalition to oppose the amendment.

The Kansas Libertarian Party also supported a “No” vote on Value Them Both.

And Kansas Libertarians were active in the campaign

In putting the proposed amenment on the ballot, the legislature clearly explained what the effect would be if Kansas voters rejected the amendment. The statement at the end of the ballot paper explained:”A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no change in the Constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.”

On August 2, polling places found themselves jammed with voters, including large numbers of non-affiliated voters who turned out just to vote against the anti-abortion amendment. In the first public vote on the abortion issue since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, the amendment to end abortion rights in Kansas went down to defeat.

It is clear that there was a large turnout in the Republican primary. More than 451,000 votes were cast in the Republican primary for Governor; the Democrat primary for Governor only saw 276,000 votes. In the Senate primary, Republican candidates received more than 464,000 votes; Democrat Senate candidates could only pull 226,000 votes. It would seem that the strategy of the anti-abortion conservatives should have succeeded, but it didn’t.

Not reflected in the votes for candidates in the partisan primary, large numbers of unaffiliated voters turned out, a clear majority of them to vote No on the Amendment. It would also appear that there were Republicans who still oppose government overreach. With current numbers, the Value Them Both Amendment is losing with 58% of voters voting NO.

The campaign against the Amendment was explicitly libertarian. The Los Angeles Times quotes Rachel Sweet, the campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom:“Kansans across the political spectrum believe in personal liberty and freedom,” she said. “They understand that we must protect our constitutional rights and freedom to make private medical decisions, including those about abortion.”

The Times also mentions “In one ad, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom framed the measure as a “strict government mandate designed to interfere with private medical decisions,” and showed images that linked abortion restrictions to vaccine and mask mandates.”

In conservative Kansas, more people voted NO on the Value Them Both Amendment than voted for any Republican candidate in a contested primary. With 98% of votes counted, Derek Schmidt, victor in the Republican primary for Governor, has received 365,031 votes. With 98.2% counted, Jerry Moran won the Republican primary for US Senate with 374,994 votes (and counting). With 97.3% of votes tallied, 538,847 NO votes have been counted on the Value Them Both Amendment. A message to Republicans – in traditionally Republican Kansas, Abortion Rights are more popular than any Republican candidate.

A message to The Libertarian National Committee: in the first vote on Abortion Rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, the Libertarian message of personal freedom won an outstanding victory, with the support of Kansas Libertarians. Do you yet have any second thoughts about what you are doing to the Party of Liberty?

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Rothbard, Branden discuss Cults

In the period after the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, a young Murray Rothbard became involved in the Ayn Rand circle in New York. Rothbard brought several other young libertarians from his Circle Bastiat into the group.

Rothbard had been invited into the circle by Nathanial Branden after he wrote to Rand about how great her accomplishment was in writing Atlas Shrugged. Branden writes in Judgment Day:”The letter was movingly and beautifully written, profoundly insightful concerning what Ayn had accomplished in Atlas and full of what seemed like the most genuine appreciation and admiration. It was almost the model of an ideal fan letter, at the highest intellectual level.” (page 259).

It didn’t last. Rothbard came to see in the Ayn Rand circle what others came to see – acolytes looking up to a guru. After several months in the Ayn Rand circle, in a letter to Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard wrote that “the fanaticism with which they worship Rand and Branden has to be seen to be believed, the whole atmosphere being a kind of combination of a religious cult and a Trotskyite cell.” (quoted in Mises: the Last Night of Liberalism by Guido Huelsmann)

Nathanial Branden had his own reaction to Murray Rothbard:”Murray lived in New York and Ayn invited him to a meeting. While he clearly had striking intellectual gifts, I felt a stab of disappointment almost the first moment. fear and malice seemed to leap from his face.”

Soon Rothbard’s anarchism became an issue. Branden writes in Judgment Day (page 260): “We had a few debates with Murray about government and its necessity, which were initially calm and good natured. One evening he brought with him his own circle of friends —young students of economics, history and the like —all of whom were anarchists and all of whom, at least to my perception, had something of Murray’s manner about them, something fearful and given to sarcasm and hints of unidentified superiority. In appearance and style they were indistinguishible from any of the young socialists I had ever encountered.”

Objectivism and Libertarianism are both philosophies focused on individualism, and respect for individuality. Even such philosophies can lead to cult-like behavior. Murray Rothbard and Nathanial Branden have each warned us about cult behavior. It is up to us to protect our individuality and up to us to respect the individuality of others.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Murray Rothbard on Abortion

In the June 1971 issue of The Libertarian Forum, Murray Rothbard published a front page essay on libertarian strategy, titled How to Destatize. In this essay he looks at what libertarian activists were doing, and what libertarian activists were saying had to be done to bring about a free society.

After critiquing the “education” approach of right-wing libertarians, and the left-wing actions on May Day in 1971, Dr Rothbard looks at two victories for liberty in New York state – the end of rent control, and the legalization of abortion. New York state legalized abortion in 1970, three years after Gov. Ronald Reagan had signed a law to protect abortion rights in California in 1967. Rothbard credits the focus of the women’s movement on principle, and their willingness to act in support of principle, for pushing New York state to legalize abortion. Here is what he wrote in 1971:

“Abortion reform also had the ingredients of sound libertarian theory at work plus a crisis situation. The theory had been propounded for years by pro-abortion groups, but was accelerated recently by the fact that the Women’s Lib groups, in their raucous and annoying manner, had stumbled across a purely libertarian theory which they propounded with force and effect: that every woman has the absolute right to own and control her own body. The attention devoted to Women’s Lib by the media assured that the politicians finally were able to hear, not a wishywashy liberal plea for moderate abortion reform, but the “extreme” – and consistent – view that the State had no right to pass any abortion restrictions whatever.”

“While libertarian theory had been firmed up and spread more aggressively, a crisis situation was becoming ever more blatant: and this was the massive, non-violent civil disobedience of women and doctors who obtained their abortions illegally. And not only were increasing numbers of women and doctors willing to ignore the law; but others were increasingly willing to broaden the fuzzy zone that often exists between legality and illegality: for example, doctors willing to stretch the definition of “endangering the health of the mother”, which made abortion permissible. Furthermore, it was also becoming evident that, taking place as they did under conditions of illegality, the abortions were both unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily dangerous. In the case of abortions, then, it was mass civil disobedience that brought about the crisis situation, while the spread of libertarian theory made the government more willing to turn· to the de-statizing solution, But not only theory: also the use of the theory to pressure the politicians, by petition, by noise, by threat of votes, etc.”

You can access The Libertarian Forum as PDF @ The Mises Instiute (Scroll down to June 1971)

With the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade, and the actions of the “Mises” Caucus at the Recent Libertarian National Convention, it is necessary to reassert the libertarian commitment to personal rights, including the right to privacy and the right to self-ownership.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

California Eliminates Cannabis Cultivation Tax, Effective Immediately

California’s regulated cannabis market just got a little bit more competitive with the robust illicit market that has continued to flex its power in the state. 

Following Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signing of a $308-billion state budget on June 30, California’s weight-based cannabis cultivation tax was eliminated—effective July 1, 2022.

The cultivation tax, which imposed a $161-per-pound rate on licensed growers—regardless of the current market value of cannabis—was abolished via Assembly Bill 195, which was attached as a trailer to the state budget.

On June 29, the California Senate passed A.B. 195 via a 34-0 vote, while the Assembly passed the measure, 69-1. Assemblymember Rudy Salas casted the lone no vote before Newsom signed the budget the following day. 

For Graham Farrar, co-founder and president of Glass House Brands, a Santa Barbara-based cannabis operator with more than a half a million square feet of cultivation space, A.B. 195 is in line with one of two main changes being advocated and echoed among the state’s license holders: less taxes and more retail.

“It’s huge,” Farrar said of killing the state’s cultivation tax. “You can charge a premium for licensed product because nobody prefers ‘bathtub gin,’ right? I think we’d all rather have licensed product, but there’s only so much premium people are willing to pay. So, less taxes narrows that gap [so the licensed growers have a chance to be competitive with the folks who aren’t paying taxes].”

Among the measures included in A.B. 195, the bill also maintains a 15% cannabis excise tax but moves the collection of that excise tax from distributors to point of retail sale by Jan. 1, 2023.

Full Report @ California NORML

Russians Urged to Snitch on Ukraine War Critics in Return to Soviet-Style Denunciations

Following Russia’s bombing of a drama theatre in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol in March, St. Petersburg-based artist Alexandra Skochilenko swapped supermarket price tags with stickers containing information about the attack that reportedly killed hundreds of civilians.

A fellow store customer reported her act of resistance to the police.

“I was extremely outraged by the slander I read because I worry a lot about Russian soldiers in Ukraine,” the 72-year-old informant claimed in testimony published by local media.

Soon after, Skochilenko, 31, was arrested for spreading “false information” about the Russian Army — a crime under new legislation that is being used to clamp down on information deviating from the Kremlin’s narrative of the war in Ukraine.

Skochilenko is one of dozens of Russians who have been criminally charged for anti-war actions or statements since the invasion began on Feb. 24. 

Many have been reported to police by family, neighbors and passersby in a trend analysts say harks back to Soviet denunciations — and is being actively encouraged by Russian authorities.

Complete Post @ The Moscow Times