People who viewed this on FOX tell me it was obvious that the interviewer deliberately interrupted Congressman Paul mid-sentence so it would seem like he was endorsing Jill Stein over Gary Johnson.
This is part of a pattern of media spin to attack Gary Johnson: he didn’t recognize “Aleppo” as a reference to the Syrian refugee crisis and civil war (which obviously most people refer to as “Syria,” since millions then had to google “Aleppo” after the story was spun); he couldn’t recall Vincente Fox’s name (though he knew the only foreign leader he admired was the President of Mexico who has spoken around the world condemning the drug war) when asked about foreign leaders he admired – and this was spun as not knowing the names of ANY foreign leaders. Likewise when William Weld said Hillary had paper-qualifications or Trump had not violated any tax laws, the press quoted these sound bites out of context as if they were endorsements.
Ron Paul: Jill Stein is more libertarian than Gary Johnson: Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is preferable to Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson on at least some issues, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul said Monday. I said if the independents, who don’t know what to do and who should they pick, I say if you tend to lean towards progressivism and liberalism and you’re interested in expressing yourself, you can vote for the Green Party, he said on MSNBC. I think she’s probably best on foreign policy at the moment. But on Gary Johnson, he does not come across with a crisp libertarian message. Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2584781 Paul, who was the libertarian nominee for president in 1988, stressed that he hasn’t endorsed anyone yet. I have not told any supporters who are interested for whom they should vote, he said.
A documentary opening Friday about how Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage has powered their political dynasty is the latest entree in a growing menu of politically charged, campaign-season films.
Clinton Inc., scheduled to open in Chicago on Friday and around the country by mid-October, casts the Clinton marriage as an unusual arrangement that allows the couple to support each other’s separate political ambitions, and find ways to use their positions to enrich themselves along the way.
Loosely based the 2014 book Clinton Inc. by Daniel Halper, a former Weekly Standard editor who now runs the Washington bureau of the New York Post, the film draws on interviews and archival footage to explore the psychological roots of Bill Clinton’s philandering. It argues that Hillary made herself and their marriage essential to his political career by enabling and covering up his affairs (a territory also explored in the Roger Stone book The Clintons’ War on Women).
The documentary is part of a growing genre of influential and successful films that criticize contemporary politics and politicians. Peter Schweitzer, the author of a book on the Clinton Foundation, “Clinton Cash,” has produced a movie version of his book which anyone can be watched for free on the website of the conservative news outlet, Breitbart.
Voters this year are despairing their electoral choices. Someone could organize a film festival for them for entertainment. Maybe throw in The Manchurian Candidate and Wag The Dog for levity.
I love Ann Coulter.
New York, NY
<li class=”event-stack event-where complete” data-address=”687 Lexington Ave, New York, NY” data-id=”23837660″ data-name=”Fitzpatrick Manhattan Hotel” id=”event-where” style=”background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #272727; margin: 0px; padding: 8px 0px 0px;”>
Gary Johnson CNN Townhall
Debate watching parties around the country including:
Buzzards Bay, MA
Little Rock, AR
Hard Times Cafe
9405 Ruidosa Trl, Irving, TX 75063-4644, United States
Las Vegas, NV
Reforming the USPS
Rayburn House office building B-369
The U.S. Postal Service has lost more than $50 billion since 2007 as mail volume has plummeted. House and Senate committees are working on legislation to stem the losses, and a stamp price hike is in the mix. Meanwhile, many European nations have reinvigorated their postal systems by privatizing them and opening them to competition.
What challenges does the USPS face, and what changes are being considered by Congress? Should the USPS be moved to the private sector, and should entrepreneurs be allowed to compete?
Join our distinguished panel of experts—James Gattuso, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation; Kevin Kosar, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute; and Chris Edwards, Editor, DownsizingGovernment.org, Cato Institute; and Peter Russo, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute—to hear about the postal deficit crisis and ideas for major reforms.
If you can’t make it to the event, you can watch it live online atwww.cato.org/live and join the conversation on Twitter using #CatoEvents. Follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute.
Brexit Victory, new reason editor Katherine Mangu-Ward, and a communication problem for libertarians28 Jun
In a way it’s a curious position for Ms. Mangu-Ward, a non-electoral libertarian who believes “voting only encourages them,” yet thinks international governmental organizations and agreements are a good path to free trade. It may be a minority position too – not only conservatives but libertarians like Ron Paul as well as those in England and elsewhere favor Brexit.
It also highlights a problem area for libertarians, who often appear on C-Span, in the form of lawyers and scholars affiliated with CATO etc, arguing for free trade to an audience, if judged by the callers, who don’t get the economic arguments about gains of trade and then view the libertarians as a subspecies of the pointy headed technocratic elite that populates the government and wants to tell them how to live their lives.
In on line discussions among members of the British Libertarian Alliance, opinion was something like this:
“…The death of the UK to be replaced by being a sub-state of the EU is a libertarian nightmare. By rejecting the EU we have taken a major step in the direction of libertarianism.
This was not the intention of most Leave campaigners but it means that the UK is now more… vulnerable, one might say, to libertarian campaigning. The EU is no longer there to impose its own laws from outside. Now all that we, as libertarians, have to contend with is the infrastructure and bureaucracy of British government. This is by no means an easy job but it’s a lot easier than having to cope with the EU too!
Our job of bringing about libertarian change has just because a little bit easier.
All of a sudden, there is a lot less state for us to deal with.”
I fear libertarians have a communication problem they don’t know how to deal with here. I saw one clicktivist in a group of gay Trump supporters recently damn all libertarians for looking down on people and thinking they are smarter than everyone else. One of Gary Johnson’s main media people, as well as a Republican delegate to the GOP nominating convention who wants to campaign for Johnson, have both expressed to me their exasperation with me when I ask if Libertarian candidates should not find a way to appeal to the concerns of Trump voters.
I’m picking on Ms. Mangu-Ward a little, as she dislikes me. She’s also a smart woman and might have some ideas about this communications problem.
Brexit Wins: Why That’s Great News for Europe, Too
British voters have elected to leave the European Union in a national referendum. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage declared Friday Britain’s “independence day.” That is quite a statement given British history. A little over two and a quarter centuries ago, America had its own first Independence Day, and the British Empire was the super-state from which Americans declared independence.
Independence is not isolation.
History has come full circle; in a sense, today we are seeing the American Revolution in reverse. In many ways, the European Union is a lever of US global hegemony. By seceding from the EU in spite of threats from Washington, Britain is declaring partial independence from America.
It must be noted that independence is not isolation. This is the key distinction that is intentionally blurred by the “Better Together” rhetoric of the “Remain” camp. When they scaremonger about “leaving Europe,” it conjures images of Britain abandoning Western civilization. But “the West,” as in the US-led alliance of neo-colonial powers, is not the same thing as Western civilization. And the European Union is not the same thing as Europe. Exiting a mega-state in defiance of an imperium is not withdrawing from civilization. In fact, such an exit is propitious for civilization.
Small Is Beautiful
Political independence fosters economic interdependence.
Advocates of international unions and super-states claim that centralization promotes trade and peace: that customs unions break down trade barriers and international government prevents war. In reality, super-states encourage both protectionism and warfare. The bigger the trade bloc, the more it can cope with the economic isolation that comes with trade warfare. And the bigger the military bloc, the easier it is for bellicose countries to externalize the costs of their belligerence by dragging the rest of the bloc into its fights.
A small political unit cannot afford economic isolationism; it simply doesn’t have the domestic resources necessary. So for all of UKIP’s isolationist rhetoric, the practical result of UK independence from the European economic policy bloc would likely be freer trade and cross-border labor mobility (immigration). Political independence fosters economic interdependence. And economic interdependence increases the opportunity costs of war and the benefits of peace.
The Power of Exit
Super-states also facilitate international policy “harmonization.” What this means is that, within the super-state, the citizen has no escape from onerous laws, like the regulations that unceasingly pour out of the EU bureaucracy. But with political decentralization, subjects can “vote with their feet” for less burdensome regimes. Under this threat of “exit,” governments are incentivized to liberalize in order to compete for taxpayer feet. Today’s referendum was a victory both for Brexit and the power of exit. That’s good news for European liberty.
During its Industrial Revolution, Britain was a beacon of domestic liberty and economic progress that stimulated liberal reform on the European continent. An independent Britain in the 21st century can play that role again. In doing so, Britain would help Europe outside the EU far more than it ever could on the inside. Brexit may be a death knell for the European Union, yet ultimately a saving grace for the European people.