Trump conviction rests on dubious reasoning

There was a glaring mismatch between the charges against the former president and what prosecutors described as the essence of his crime.

Trump's Conviction Suggests Jurors Bought the Prosecution's Dubious 'Election Fraud' Narrative | Reason | Jacob Sullum:

May 30.2024 -"After deliberating for a little more than a day, a Manhattan jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty of falsifying 34 business records to aid or conceal 'another crime,' an intent that turns what would otherwise be misdemeanors into felonies. If you assumed that the jury's conclusions would be driven by political animus, this first-ever criminal conviction of a former president is the result you probably expected in a jurisdiction where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 9 to 1. But in legal terms, the quick verdict is hard to fathom....

"Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Trump stemmed from the $130,000 that Michael Cohen, then Trump's lawyer and fixer, paid porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election to keep her from talking about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. When Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017, prosecutors said, he tried to cover up the arrangement with Daniels by pretending that he was paying Cohen, whom he had designated as his personal attorney, for legal work.... Cohen was the only witness who directly confirmed those two points.... But even without Cohen's testimony, there was strong circumstantial evidence that Trump approved the payoff and went along with the reimbursement scheme. The real problem for the prosecution was proving that Trump falsified business records  with 'an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof' — the element that was necessary to treat the misleading documents as felonies.... 

"According to one theory, Cohen made an excessive campaign contribution, thereby violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), when he fronted the money to pay Daniels. Cohen pleaded guilty to that offense in 2018 as part of an agreement that also resolved several other, unrelated federal charges against him.... It is unclear whether Trump violated FECA by soliciting Cohen's 'contribution,' a question that hinges on the fuzzy distinction between personal and campaign expenditures. Given the uncertainty on that point, it is plausible that Trump did not think the Daniels payment was illegal, which helps explain why he was never prosecuted under FECA.... 

"According to a second theory, Trump facilitated a violation of New York tax law by allowing Cohen to falsely report his reimbursement as income. Although that violation is described as 'criminal tax fraud,' Merchan said it did not matter that Cohen's alleged misrepresentation resulted in a higher tax bill.... Putting aside that counterintuitive definition of tax fraud, this theory required believing that Trump, when he reimbursed Cohen, not only contemplated what would happen when Cohen filed his returns the following year but also thought that 'unlawful means' somehow would influence an election that had already happened. The logic here was hard to follow.

"Likewise with the third theory of 'unlawful means.' Prosecutors suggested that Trump's falsification of business records was designed to aid or conceal the falsification of other business records.... Prosecutors said the records related to Cohen's dummy corporation, for example, were falsified because they misrepresented the nature and purpose of that entity, which by itself is a misdemeanor. That misdemeanor was the 'unlawful means' by which Trump allegedly sought to promote his election, another misdemeanor. And because Trump allegedly tried to conceal the latter misdemeanor by falsifying the records related to Cohen's reimbursement, those records are 34 felonies instead of 34 misdemeanors. The theory that Trump falsified business records to conceal the falsification of business records was 'so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room,' George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said.... 

"To disguise the difficulties with its dueling theories, the prosecution averred that Trump committed 'election fraud'.... During his summation, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass called the nondisclosure agreement with Daniels 'a subversion of democracy.' He said it was an 'effort to hoodwink the American voter.' He told 'a sweeping story about a fraud on the American people,' as The New York Times put it. 'He argue[d] that the American people in 2016 had the right to determine whether they cared that Trump had slept with a porn star or not, and that the conspiracy prevented them from doing so.' Did the American people have such a right? If so, Trump would have violated it even he had merely asked Daniels to keep quiet, perhaps by appealing to her sympathy for his wife. If Daniels had agreed, the result would have been the same. As the prosecution told it, that still would amount to 'election fraud,' even though there is clearly nothing illegal about it. The jurors evidently bought this cover story....

"In short, there was a glaring mismatch between the charges against Trump and what prosecutors described as the essence of his crime, which is not a crime at all.... That approach suggests several possible grounds for appeal....

"Last week, New York Times columnist David French worried about the consequences of a conviction that is overturned on appeal. 'Imagine a scenario in which Trump is convicted at the trial, Biden condemns him as a felon and the Biden campaign runs ads mocking him as a convict,' he wrote. 'If Biden wins a narrow victory but then an appeals court tosses out the conviction, this case could well undermine faith in our democracy and the rule of law.' In his desperation to prevent Trump from reoccupying the White House, Bragg has already accomplished that."

Read more: https://reason.com/2024/05/30/the-verdict-against-trump-suggests-jurors-bought-the-prosecutions-dubious-election-fraud-narrative/

Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in hush money trial | CTV News | May 30, 2024: 

Say No to NOTA in Libertarian POTUS votes

At one point in this year's Libertarian National Convention, delegates were offered the choice of only one presidential candidate to vote for, versus effectively shutting down the party. That should never happen again.

by George J. Dance

Last weekend I watched some of the Libertarian National Convention on C-SPAN. Political junkie that I am, I was mostly interested in the race for presidential nominee, and was able to tune in during the sixth round of voting, between the last two candidates still on the ballot, Michael Rectenwald (the candidate endorsed by the Mises Caucus [LPMC]) and Chase Oliver (a candidate who had campaigned against the LPMC). During the voting, I got to witness the concession speech of Mike ter Maat, who had been eliminated on the previous ballot, and his attention-grabbing announcement that he was endorsing Oliver and had agreed to be his running mate.

High drama indeed, but what followed was more dramatic still: when the votes were counted, Oliver had pulled into first place, winning over 49%% of the vote; Rectenwald, who had led on every previous ballot, had fallen to second place with 44%; and None of the Above (NOTA) trailed with 44 votes. Thanks to those 44 votes, no candidate had received a majority, and another ballot would be necessary. As Chair Angela McCarcle said, it was a situation seemingly without precedent.     

The events reminded me of my last convention as Ontario Libertarian Party chairman, in 2008. At that convention Sam Apelbaum, who had served as Party Leader for more than a decade, was being challenged by long-time party activist and officer Jean-Serge Brisson. Both had high profiles in the provincial party. Both were also long-time friends of mine, so I scrupulously tried to stay neutral. To make a long story short, the penultimate ballot had a similar result: Brisson was ahead, but short of a majority; Apelbaum was slightly behind; and NOTA made up the rear. Following the customary procedure, I ruled that Apelbaum would be dropped, and there would be one more ballot between Brisson and NOTA.  

The convention exploded; I had most of the room yelling at me to reverse my decision, and to drop the lowest vote-getter (NOTA) instead. The overwhelming consensus was to not to have a ballot with just one candidate, but a final NOTA-less showdown between the leading candidates. Even Brisson agreed with that: he wanted to win, but not that way; he preferred to fight a head-to-head two-man race, and risk losing, rather than win by having his rival removed from the ballot.   

I agreed, too, but I refused to reverse my ruling. Instead, I asked the delegates to overrule it by a two-thirds vote. A two-thirds vote would make it clear that this departure from precedent was the will of the convention (and therefore the will of the party), not simply my own; and would be a decision that would not likely be questioned later (as supporters of both candidates would have voted for it). I even wrote the motion: "To overrule the decision of the chair, suspend the rules, and remove None of the Above from the next ballot." 

That motion was so moved and seconded, and passed overwhelmingly. So the final ballot was a showdown between the two candidates, which Apelbaum narrowly won. That's right: the candidate who would have been eliminated, had we kept NOTA, actually won the vote in a fair contest. So the ruling made a difference to who became leader. More importantly, though, it led to a result that everyone in the room accepted, and no one ever disputed then or later.  

The situation I was watching was uncannily familiar. Once again, Chair McArdle made the same ruling as I did: to drop the candidate running second (Rectenwald). and have a final ballot between the leading candidate (Oliver) and NOTA. Once again, there were copious objections. Some were concerned that, if NOTA won, the party would be unable to run a candidate for POTUS at all. Others demanded that, to save time, Oliver be acclaimed without a vote. But no one suggested the solution we had used in 2008, to drop the lowest vote-getter (NOTA) and have a final runoff ballot between Oliver and Rectenwald. It never even came up. 

Why not? At the time, I assumed it was because of a party bylaw dictating that NOTA would always be on the ballot. I even tweeted to that effect. However, I have learned not to assume things; so I decided to look up the relevant text in the LP's 2020 Bylaws and Convention Rules (as amended in 2022). What I found surprised me. There were only three mentions of NOTA, one in the Bylaws and two in the Convention Rules. The one in Article 10, Section 7, of the Bylaws said: 

7. Votes cast for "None of the Above" in voting on the Party's nominees for President and Vice President, the Party officers, and at-large members of the National Committee, shall be considered valid. Should a majority of the votes be cast for "None of the Above" in the Presidential or Vice-Presidential balloting, no candidate shall be nominated for that office. Should "None of the Above" be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office.

The above section explains what happens should NOTA win a majority. It also declares that votes for NOTA shall always "be considered valid". Which does not mean that NOTA must appear on the ballot; it means that if NOTA receives votes, even as a write-in, those must be counted. Since the party counts all votes cast, including write-ins, that should not be an issue. 

The Convention Rules contain two mentions of NOTA. The first is irrelevant, but it is best to quote it for completeness.  

RULE 7: NOMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

A delegate who collects the required number of nominating tokens so designated may speak up to 5 minutes in favor of voting for None Of The Above.

The second mention of NOTA in the rules, on the other hand, is directly relevant.

RULE 8: ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND NATIONAL COMMITTEE

2a. Each delegate may cast a ballot with a vote for either none-of-the-above or one vote per candidate for any number of candidates. Every ballot with a vote for none-of-the-above or one or more candidates is counted as one ballot cast. A vote for none-of-the-above shall be ignored if the ballot also includes a vote for any other candidate.  

Here at last is a requirement that NOTA appear on every ballot. Notice, though, that it applies only to the election of Officers and National Committee members. The nominees are neither Officers nor members of the National Committee (which is why they are treated separately in the Bylaws). The distinction is not merely semantic. If NOTA wins a majority vote for an Officer or National Committee position, that results in a vacancy; and the National Committee has the power to fill such vacancies later. In contrast, if NOTA wins a vote for either POTUS or VPOTUS, then "no candidate shall be nominated for that office," period.    

Imagine, then, if NOTA had won on the seventh ballot. It would mean the national party could not run a POTUS candidate in 2024. State parties could nominate slates of electors pledged to a candidate, in effect making an endorsement; but the national LP would have to sit this year out. They would not be able to pay for any more ballot access petitioning, for example. In some states where the POTUS candidate did not appear on the ballot, lower-level candidates would also lose their ballot access. As well, the LP would lose almost all of its present ballot access for 2028 and have to start again at zero. In effect, a majority vote for NOTA on that ballot could well have shut down the LP. Delegates were being offered the choice of only one candidate they could vote for, versus effectively shutting down the party. 

So why did more than a third of the convention delegates vote for NOTA on that ballot? Some may have been simply voting against Oliver; after all, by making the deal with ter Maat, he broke his word to his own promised running mate. (Mike ter Maat, too, has been accused of breaking his word, though I have no details on that.) Others might have done so to protest the idea of a one-candidate election. I would speculate, though, that by far the majority of NOTA voters were LPMC members who would have voted for Rectenwald had they not been denied that option. They probably would still have lost (Oliver was only a few votes from a majority), but at least they would have lost in a fair fight rather than by their candidate being yanked off the ballot.  

So, again, why was NOTA left on the ballot and Rectenwald removed? The answer appears to be simply that the option we used in 2008 – eliminating NOTA and leaving the two candidates to fight it out – never occurred to McCardle. Nor did anyone else communicate the idea. Given the context, with McArdle being continually bombarded with parliamentary points of order and privilege and the like, I can see how both could have happened. With the balloting already running hours late, everyone was tired, and not interested in dragging it out further.  

In any case, it is water under the bridge; that should never have happened, but it did. Oliver is now the nominated candidate, and the bad blood from the circumstances of his nomination has already been spilled. However, if the LP survives this campaign year intact, it will by definition be as polarized as ever, meaning that the same situation may well occur in 2028 and beyond. It happened once, but it should never happen again. I wanted to get the solution on record; while I doubt many people will read this, if I did not write it no one would ever read it.    

In elections for POTUS or VPOTUS nominee, convention delegates can remove NOTA from the ballot by a supermajority. And, to prevent one-candidate ballots and the risk of a nominee not being selected, that power should be acknowledged and exercised. 

CapitalismAndMorality conference held in Calgary

Capitalists confront sacred cows in Calgary | Western Standard | Fergus Hodgson: 

May 27, 2024 - "CapitalismAndMorality has been gathering for 15 years in Vancouver, with as much of a penchant for political incorrectness as for libertarian thought. Since 2023, Calgary has hosted its own one-day franchise, advertised by local organizers Darcy Gerow and Clayton Reeder as bringing 'together some of the finest minds to discuss the economics and philosophy of liberty.' This weekend's event — held Saturday at the Danish Canadian Club — had a lineup of seven speakers and a four-man panel. They lived up to CapitalismAndMorality's rebel reputation for the roughly 60 attendees.

"Event founder Jayant Bandhari addressed Canada's changing demographics and soaring immigration. A native of India, Bandhari contends that Indian culture will eventually dominate Canada, given the prevalence of Indian and other South Asian immigrants. Bandhari dismissed European civilization as on its last legs, leaving East and Southeast Asia to fill the vacuum.

"Retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht added spice to the menu by explaining the myth of residential-school mass graves. The Assembly of First Nations, Giesbrecht said, 'has milked this issue for all it's worth.' He added that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's decision to back the notion of indigenous genocide was likely his worst decision among many bad decisions.

"The final panel, 'Secession, Separatism, Independence,' was led by Gerow and demonstrated the welcome for different perspectives: from anarcho-capitalists to classical liberals and sovereigntists. Michael Wagner of Edmonton is an established Christian-conservative columnist with the Western Standard and an author who advocates Alberta separatism. Flanking him were this article's writer (Fergus Hodgson) and Cory Morgan, a show host and fellow Western Standard columnist but a self-described libertarian. They are the authors of Time to Leave (2024), Financial Sovereignty for Canadians (2024), and The Sovereigntist's Handbook (2023), respectively....

Corey Morgan speaking at CapitalismAndMorality conference. Photo by Western Standard.

"Brett Oland, CEO of Bow Valley Credit Union ... conveyed his concerns about central-bank digital currencies — given the prospect of surveillance and social control — and endless inflation of fiat currencies. His organization holds precious metals on its balance sheet, and he is building parallel, competitive currencies for Albertans....

"Libertarian Party leader Jacques Boudreau traveled from Petrolia, Ontario, for the event. An actuary by trade, he spoke about Canada's precarious finances. He is pessimistic about the political class facing up to the crisis, concealed via unfunded liabilities and layering across levels of government. He foresees dwindling returns on pensions and higher taxes and/or reduced social services.... Boudreau thought the limited attendance was 'shameful' given 'the brainpower of the people who presented … It would make any Liberal MP's head explode'.... 

"Organizer Gerow shared that he was ambivalent about politicians speaking at the event. However, he acknowledged that the previous year's event had a higher attendance on account of leader of the People's Party of Canada Maxime Bernier's presence. Gerow wants the event to be educational and not promote a specific political party. Boudreau respected that request and his presentation, 'Government & Immorality,' had barely a mention of his party affiliation. That fit with an audience without any apparent consensus affiliation of its own. Likely, attendees included apolitical types among supporters of the United Conservative Party, People's Party, Libertarian Party, and secessionist-inclined parties.

"Gerow was still pleased with the turnout and said the attendees tended to be the core of the Calgary Libertarian Meetup Group, which hosts monthly gatherings. His hope is to cultivate a free-thinking, supportive community via in-person events, in addition to whatever educational material is conveyed at the same time. For those who cannot be there, CapitalismAndMorality has shared content online for free, thus echoing it well beyond the audience on the day."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/capitalists-confront-sacred-cows-in-calgary/54844

Chase Oliver wins Libertarian POTUS nomination

After a grueling seven ballots at the Libertarian National Convention, Chase Oliver won the party's presidential nomination, with >35% voting for None of the Above on the final ballot. 

Chase Oliver campaigning in Iowa, 2023. Photo by Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons.

Chase Oliver Is the Libertarian Party's Presidential Pick | Reason | Eric Boehm: 

May 26, 2023 - "Two years ago, Chase Oliver burst onto the Libertarian political scene by forcing a runoff in the Georgia Senate election — a result that ultimately determined the majority in the U.S. Senate. Now he can aim to leave an even bigger mark.

"Oliver won the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination in dramatic fashion Sunday night, prevailing on the seventh round of balloting after running second in each of the first five rounds. Oliver received 60.6 percent of the vote in the final round, finally clearing the 50 percent threshold for victory against 'none of the above,' the only alternative that remained on the ballot after Oliver narrowly won a sixth-round showdown with professor-turned-podcaster Michael Rectenwald, who had led the count in each of the first five rounds [and was removed from the ballot for the seventh round - gd].

"'I am extending my hand. Take it, and be a partner with me in liberty," Oliver said in his victory speech, making a pitch to his opponents within the Libertarian Party, which has been riven for the past two years by a deep divide over tactics and principles. It was a fitting end to a tempestuous convention that saw Libertarian delegates loudly boo former President Donald Trump during an unorthodox appearance by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

"Oliver, a 38-year-old gay man from Atlanta with socially tolerant and pro-immigration views, delivered a passionate response after Trump's speech to the convention on Saturday. Now, he will get to spend the next six months competing directly against Trump and President Joe Biden, two men more than twice his age.... 

"Oliver's victory on Sunday night was a blow to the Mises Caucus, the right-leaning faction that took control of the Libertarian Party at the 2022 convention and that had orchestrated Trump's appearance at the convention. That faction's preferred candidate was Rectenwald.

"For much of Sunday's lengthy balloting process, it seemed like Rectenwald might narrowly prevail — even after giving a rambling, somewhat incoherent speech on Saturday night, after which he admitted that he'd been high on an edible. No candidate got close to an outright majority in the first round of balloting, completed in mid-afternoon on Sunday.... The second, third, and fourth rounds of voting whittled down the field but were hardly decisive. Rectenwald maintained his lead over Oliver... 

"It was the fifth round that provided the first indication of the final outcome. With tech entrepreneur Lars Mapstead eliminated, Oliver and ter Maat swept up dozens of additional votes while Rectenwald's momentum faltered. After being eliminated in that round, ter Maat extended an endorsement to Oliver from the convention floor — in exchange for being Oliver's vice-presidential choice. (Unlike the Republicans and Democrats, the Libertarian Party selects the two positions in separate votes. But the winner of the presidential nomination typically has significant influence in the outcome of the second contest.).... ter Maat's embrace of Oliver seemed to tilt the outcome."

Read more: https://reason.com/2024/05/26/chase-oliver-is-the-libertarian-partys-presidential-pick/

BC Conservatives shaking up provincial politics

From a fringe party with no seats in the legislature just 18 months ago, the BC Conservatives have quickly risen to become viable challengers to British Columbia's ruling socialist NDP. 

Abacus Data poll, May 14, 2024.

There will be no pre-election merger of right-wing parties in BC... | Western Standard | Paul Forseth: 

May 20, 2024 - "The Conservative Party of BC has been riding a wave of popularity in the polls and promises to run a full slate of 93 candidates in the BC election due Oct. 19, 2024. It is a resurrection. After decades of irrelevance — the Conservatives have not elected an MLA for many years — BC's oldest party is rising from the political ashes. Now it faces questions about merger or cooperation with the BC United Party, currently the official opposition to the governing NDP. 

"It would be a re-uniting of sorts: Both current Conservative caucus members — Leader John Rustad and Bruce Banman — were once members of the BC Liberal Party, the precursor to the BC United Party. Both leaders, Kevin Falcon of BC United and John Rustad of the BC Conservatives have admitted to third-party communications going back some months. The Conservatives attempted to open discussions with BC United in December 2023, but Leader Kevin Falcon was not receptive at that time, and is reported to have said bluntly to 'F#cl off.'  His tune changed when the polling trends emerged.... 

"An actual merger is complicated and fraught with potential for error. And to be blunt, there's no time. A merger would require membership voting and a leadership race in addition to negotiations over basic policy declarations. Additionally, there would have to be a huge climb down by BC United Leader Kevin Falcon from his previous remarks about some Conservatives. He would also have to retract and apologize to John Rustad for giving him the boot from the BC United Party.

"The new political landscape is too raw for the parties to consider uniting.... Additionally, the policy perspectives of the two parties are quite different....  For Conservatives, a merger at this point would be seen as a dilution of Conservative values and would likely cause a membership revolt. These members now enjoy a resurrection in popularity and see no value in watering down their wine for a political maneuver. Consequently, based on what each leader has said, there will be no merger."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/forseth-there-will-be-no-pre-election-merger-of-right-wing-parties-in-bc/54689

BC Conservatives reject BC United's non-compete offer | CHEK Media | May 24, 2024:

BC Conservatives and BCUnited — the favoured and the ‘also ran’ | Western Standard | Paul Forseth:

May 27, 2024 - "In the jostling to become the BC replacement for the stumbling NDP government, I wrote May 20, that there would be no merger between the BC Conservatives and BC United.... However, to save face, Leader Kevin Falcon of the BCUnited has taken the gloves off and is now in a full-blown hissy fit....

"The mistake was not about who had the gravitas to be the leader to oppose the NDP.  It is about policy, going back many weeks and months.... BC Conservatives leader Rustad has been consistent in saying that his reading of the political landscape was that the BC Conservatives have been more correct on policy as reflected in the polls.... Policy differences were clarified by Falcon’s leadership positions, as his exclusion decisions led to the BC Conservatives gaining official party status in the BC Legislature in September 2023. Subsequently, policy statements magnified the differences between the two parties. When the voters looked at it, they chose the BC Conservatives in poll after poll.... 

"The BC Conservatives have been helped in public reputation by the popularity of the Federal Conservatives [while] Falcon has been associated with the unpopular PM Justin Trudeau. The ... BC Conservative ... platform ... has proved more popular than the BCUnited positions.  The recent expensive TV ad campaigns by BCUnited have not moved the political dial one bit. Now ... BCUnited appears to ... have slammed the door on the old coalition of the non-NDP voter. Each free enterprise [sic] party is now firmly on its own, seeking electoral favour on Saturday, October 19, 2024.  I bet that the voters who cannot abide another NDP term in office will coalesce behind the BC Conservatives."  

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/forseth-bc-conservatives-and-bcunited-the-favoured-and-the-also-ran/54851

Reason on Libertarian POTUS race

Brian Doherty, the author of Radicals for Capitalism, posted a long dispatch on the Libertarian Party National Convention on the Reason website yesterday. While it was mostly devoted to The Story – Donald Trump's appearance at the convention – Doherty also reported on the POTUS nomination race within the party.

Inside the Libertarian Party's Decision To Host a Trump Speech | Reason | Brian Doherty: 

May 24, 2024 - "It's certainly unusual for small political parties to invite their most charismatic rivals to come try to steal their voters.... But the L.P. leadership faction that engineered the stunt, including National Chair Angela McArdle, counter that it has already reaped a nearly unprecedented amount of media attention, bolstering the finances of a party that for the past two years has been bleeding money and membership. 'Convention sales, and donations, have been explosive following the announcement of Trump (and others) since the beginning of this month,' said Todd Hagopian, who has been L.P. treasurer since May 2022, via email. Hagopian, who opposed inviting L.P. competitors Trump, President Joe Biden, and the attending independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said that full numbers won't be available until after the convention, but: 'Best period of fundraising since I've been on the board'....

"Part of the McArdle/Mises Caucus pitch for having the Trump and RFK Jr. circuses at the convention is that the much lesser-known L.P. presidential candidates will have the kind of spotlight they never otherwise would have dreamed of. And political reporters will be witnessing a nominating race that is currently wide open.

"The Mises Caucus is backing Michael Rectenwald, a former Marxist professor at New York University who became disillusioned with the politically correct 'social justice creed taking over universities all across the country.' Rectenwald railed against speech codes and microaggressions initially via an anonymous Twitter account, eventually suffering pushback from colleagues and the university. He retired in 2019 and embraced Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. Rectenwald thinks his already-established relationships with such right-leaning media stars as Tim Pool and Glenn Beck make him the candidate most likely to bring more new attention to the party. (The Mises Caucus thinks Rectenwald has what it takes to help pivot a growing L.P. audience into being the linchpin of a new media empire.) He prides himself as being the candidate most dedicated to loudly and proudly hating the state and feels qualified to throw elbows on stage with Trump, whose foreign policy he sees as essentially indistinguishable from Biden. Rectenwald has raised over $67,000 as of the start of May.

"A wide range of party members and watchers from both sides of the divide think that the Mises Caucus will be coming into the "convention with around 40 percent to 48 percent of the body, not a dominating majority. A Mises Caucus convention strategy memo circulating this week tells members to vote Rectenwald and for Liberty Lockdown podcaster Clint Russell for vice president. (The two votes are separate, with president going first.) Another old Mises Caucus stalwart who didn't get the group's official nod, Joshua Smith, is as of this writing coming in fifth in the donation-based straw poll that will define which five of the nine candidates listed get to debate at the convention.

"Chase Oliver, another presidential hopeful, is an L.P. legend for having consigned the Republicans to a minority in the U.S. Senate in 2022, when he received over 2 percent of the vote in a Georgia Senate race, thus forcing a runoff that Republican Herschel Walker lost. He's been the only presidential hopeful to campaign in all 50 states, to "demonstrate the work ethic that I would bring to the table. So I feel great going into the convention, knowing so many delegates have gotten to see me face to face.' By doing so, Oliver believes he has beaten back the reputation his online detractors had tried to pin on him of being too lefty, too enamored of identity politics. 'I came to the party as part of the antiwar movement within the Democratic Party,' he admits, but now says he's a 'hardcore free marketer' and a straight-line Libertarian on everything from foreign policy to taxes to guns and has no tolerance for 'socialism and communism.' His appeal could roughly be described as more normie political-traditional than the fire breathers he is mostly competing with. Oliver has raised over $74,000 as of the start of May.

"Lars Mapstead, a tech entrepreneur who hit it big in early social media, is offering both an unusual strategic vision for L.P. impact and the ability to self-finance his campaign in the seven figures. Mapstead's strategy is to concentrate on the states of Maine and Nebraska, which divvy up their electoral college votes rather than being winner-takes-all, which could net an actual electoral vote or two and prevent either major candidate from getting a clean win. He tweeted following the Trump/L.P. convention booking that "I have the only plan to spoil this rotten election." He can tell he has gotten the Republican's attention, he says, because Trump's team has included him in internal polling where he's pulled about 1 percent. Mapstead has raised over $737,000 as of the beginning of May, around $719,000 of which came out of his own pocket.

"Mike ter Maat is that rarity, a Libertarian former cop (from Florida), though he stresses he was able to avoid vice squad duty or anything else that would cause him to violate libertarian principles. "You learn that your last line of defense of the Constitution is a cop in many cases," he says. In an L.P. nominating process that goes to as many rounds as it takes for someone to win a bare majority of the delegate vote, with the lowest-vote candidate dropped each round, ter Maat thinks his ability to "take support from every element of the Libertarian Party," from the Mises Caucus to the Classical Liberal Caucus to the Christian Caucus, makes him a strong contender. His large staff and "background in policy and public service" give him a combination of policy boldness and the credibility needed in a general election, he insists, where he intends to borrow as much money as necessary to run a campaign that can "disrupt American politics." Ter Maat has raised over $233,000 as of the start of May, with $209,000 of that loaned or donated by himself....

"[T]hough only Rectenwald supports the Trump appearance, the rest of the Libertarian presidential field does not seem inclined to whine about it, though all are full of comments about where they differ from Trump, from spending to trade to foreign policy to COVID lockdowns. Trump's appearance and the resulting publicity is 'something our candidate will have to overcome,' Oliver says. 'I want to be an extreme contrast to Biden and Trump, and send a loud and clear message that we are not the party of Trump.'"

Read more: https://reason.com/2024/05/24/inside-the-libertarian-partys-decision-to-host-a-trump-speech/

Sarwark declares "civil war" in Libertarian Party

by George J. Dance

On the first day of the U.S. Libertarian Party (LP) Convention, former Libertarian National Committe (LNC) chair Nicholas Sarwark is declaring a "civil war" within the LP. Sarwark, director of the Libertarian Policy Institute and LNC chair from 2014 to 2020, was speaking on the Morning Joe TV show on MSNBC-TV, a Denicrat-loving and Libertarian-bashing program perhaps most notorious for its 2016 "Aleppo ambush" of LP candidate Gary Johnson..  

 The segment began with the big news story of Donald Trump's addressing the convention. The announcer (whose name I don't know) breathlessley reported only that Trump would be speaking (the predominant media narrative, a dishonest half-truth that I wrote about yesterday), which she called "the first time in U.S. history that a presidential candidate of a rival party will address the convention of a party that is presumably going to nominate its own candidate." She then introduced Sarwark as the obligatory "expert" to give context. Unfortunately, Sarwark's context turned out to contain more than a little dishonest spin of its own.   

Sarwark began by blaming his 2022 loss on "a group of hostile takeover actors from outside the party" who "seized control of the convention" and "took control of the entire National Committee". False. In fact, the Mises Caucus who won control in 2022 were LP members increasingly alienated from Sarwark and his team then in control (call them the Old Guard), in particular by their foisting on the LP an "actor from outside the party" as Gary Johnson's 2016 running mate: William Weld, a Never Trumper who  ended up "vouching for" Hillary Clinton. They organized and ran against the old guard in 2020, lost, ran again in 2022 and (in conjunction with the long-established LP Radical Caucus) won again in 2022.  

Next Sarwark blamed the new chairman, Angela McCardle, for "having taken the party systematically on a hard right, or even alt-right, turn" - his evidence being that "the first thing they did at that convention was eliminate the platform plank against bigotry" and "remove the pro-choice stance". In fact, neither of those acts were done by Ms. McCardle, but were voted on by a majority of convention delegates. And removing both seems more a matter of common sense than "right" anything. "We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant" sounds good, but what was it doing in the platform? A government should not be concerning itself with whether its citizens are "bigots" or not. And the pro-choice plank was a clear handicap, keeping pro-life libertarians out of the LP and in the Repblican Party. (I am not the only one who has said so - 2020 LP candidate Jo Jorgensen has pointed out that same problem.)    

Sarwark also mentioned a new party emphasis on border security. Like the dropping of the abortion plank, this looked to me like an ettempt to accommodate the Ron Paul libertarians. But Sarwark has his own conspiracy theory about it: 

At the time, we said: This is a MAGA operation - this is an attempt to co-opt and neuter the Libertarian Party, because Donald Trump is afraid of a strong Libertarian candidate.

Which sounds like pure rationalization; Sarwark's Old Guard fell from favor and was eventually replaced, and that could not have been due to their own shortcomings; so it must have been due to some evil force. And, not least because he is pitching this to MSNBC, that evil force just had to be MAGA. Ordinarily, Sarwark's MAGA-mongering would sound as unhinged as Joe Biden's -- but remember the story that led to all this (if you don't, Sarwark will remind you): 

Donald Trump is now going to speak and, essentially, have a rally, to a captive audience, of libertarians, is just the end of the movie, is just where we were going to go. 

So there we have it; the same disinformation about the convention that I have already debunked is now being used to justify Sarwark's crazy theory: that the Mises Caucus takeover in 2022 was just a conspiracy by "MAGA" to "shove Donald Trump down our throats" as a convention speaker this year.  

They want to kneecap the party, and knock us out of the race, and basically force us to have a Trump rally. And I think that this weekend you'll see, the civil war will end, and we will be victorious, and the Libertarian Party will go back to being, a real political party, and Donald Trump will get the reception that he so richly deserves. 

A civil war involving MAGA? That was enough to alarm Rev. Al Sharpton, who quickly interjected: 

There's a functional question that comes to mind when I hear of the civil war in the Libertarian Party, and that is that third parties like the Libertarian Party usually because the two so-called major parties don't represent all of what they want represented, Isn't it by bringing Trump in, and in many ways trying to combine the parties, doesn't it eliminate even the need for a Libertarian Party? I mean, how does the Libertarian Party, later, justify its being if it is overtaken and perceived to become a merger with the Republican nominee?  

One could point out the silliness of that idea by pointing out (again) that Kennedy will have equal speaking rights to Trump at the convention. Does this mean the LP is going to be overtaken and merged with his campaign as well as with Trump's? But, in fairness, Rev. Sharpton does not know that Kennedy will also be speaking; all he knows is what MSNBC and Sarwark have shose to tell him (which is not the whole story). He has swallowed what he was told hook, line, and sinker, and Sarwark can only praise him for that: 

You have hit it right on the head, Al. It is going to be an existential fight, because if the Libertarian Party is successfully given to MAGA, and sacrificed on the altar of a Donald Trump re-elect, then it will cease to exist as an independent party that is neither left nor right, but something different. 

This is full-bore crazy. The party will not be "overtaken" and will not "cease to exist" by having Trump and Kennedy speak, any more than it was "overtaken" and "ceased to exist," when it ran Bill Weld as a VPOTUS candidate and thereby "merged" with the Clinton campaign. And unlike Weld's "merger," this one will not be happening anywhere near election day. The party will get its 15 minutes of fame, a shot in the arm to its finances, and a place in the history books, and then move on to support its own nominated candidate. That is all. 

What does threaten the LP's continued existemce, on the other hand, is this "civil war" Sarwark and his Old Guard allies have been waging against it. When that group controlled the party's national Committee (the LNC), all the other factions - the Mises Caucus, Radical Caucuses, and smaller groups - may have been dissatisfied, but they stayed in, and continued working to support the party and its election efforts. But now when they have lost an internal election, they seem only interested in picking a fight in the middle of the LP's presidential nominating convention, a time when maximum media attention is on the party and it could hurt them most.  

When they lose this gambit (and I expect they will, accomplishing nothing but disruption), it will not be the end of them. Who knows what they will try next? All one can predict, with confidence, is that their actions will do nothing but hurt and cripple the party, if not make it "cease to exist" completely. For its own sake, I hope that the party does come together, at the convention, to reach some semblance of unity of purpose, and reject the disrupters utterly. It is time tell them, in the words of Guns 'n' Roses, that "[we] don't need your civil war." 

Trump addressing Libertarian convention doesn't sit well with former chairperson | MSNBC | May 24, 2024:

Cato CEO says Libertarian Party isn't libertarian

The President and CEO of the Cato Institute has declared the Libertarian Party "outside the bounds of libertarianism," in a Washington Post  op-ed that contains disinformation. 

by George J. Dance 

A day before the Libertarian Party (L) National Convention opens in Washington DC, Cato president and CEO Peter Goettler has launched a blistering attack on the LP. In an article in the Wathington Post, Goettler has declared that the LP is "hardly libertarian anymore" According to Goettler, the Libertarian  "party leadership has been taken over by a faction that places it well outside the bounds of libertarianism altogether". Serious charges indeed, which really should be looked into.  

For Goettler, the "bonds of libertarianism" – his criteria of what all professed "libertarians believe in" (or else) – are, or at least include: 

• individual freedom, 
• equality under the law, 
• pluralism, 
• toleration, 
• free speech, 
• freedom of religion, 
• government by consent of the governed, 
• the rule of law, 
• private property, 
• free markets and 
• limited constitutional government.

Some items on that list can be questioned. For instance, the LP membership has always included anarcho-capitalists – who are not true believers in "limited constitutional government" – which would mean that the Libertarian Party has always been "outside the bounds of libertarianism" for Goettler. But let us not put words into his mouth. The proper thing would be to let him outline which LP policy positions he objects to, and let him explain just how they run afoul of his list. 

Perhaps he will do so in a follow-up article; he does not do that here. Instead, he uses his criteria to criticize the policies of former (Republican) president Donald Trump: 

Trump ... allowed government spending and debt to continue to spiral upward, increasing the national debt by $8.4 trillion. Federal outlays soared from $4 trillion his first year (2017) to $6.8 trillion in his last year. He persists in railing against immigration and free trade, supports further expansion of presidential power and seeks to crack down on political enemies. The Libertarian Party itself said it best in a 2018 statement: “Whatever libertarian impulses Trump the candidate seemed to have … his actual performance as president stands in stark contrast."

As logicians often say on social media, WTF (Why The Fallacy)? If Goettler were arguing only that Donald Trump has done things "ouside the bounds of libertarianism," that would be all well and good: but Trump is not, and never has been or even claimed to be a libertarian (though he claims to like libertarians), much less part of its "leadership". What do facts about his policies and beliefs imply about the LP leadership's beliefs? You may (or may not) be surprised at the answer. 

As those who follow LP news know, this year's convention committee came up with a novel idea to generate some free media; with Biden, Trump, and Kennedy sucking up all the political oxygen, they would invite those three to speak and answer questions at their convention. [Update, May 24 - This morning I read an unconfirmed story that the Trump and Kennedy campaigns independently came up with the idea and took it to the LP]. Biden declined, or at least never replied; Trump and Kennedy accepted; and the free media has followed.  

Hence Mr. Goettler's article. Yet his account of the incident (the invitations) that provoked it is somewhat different, as it omits a couple of details: 

We know by now that Donald Trump likes nothing better than stepping onto a stage, hearing his name chanted by an adoring crowd, and flashing his familiar thumbs-up sign. This week, the former president will do just that under the bright lights at the Libertarian National Convention in D.C.

It will be the first time in U.S. history that a presidential candidate of a rival party will address the convention of a party that is presumably gathering to nominate its own candidate. And this strange turn of events has many libertarians scratching their heads.

As noted, both Biden and Kennedy were also invited, and Kennedy also accepted (and will be speaking). By omitting those facts, and telling his readers only that Trump was invited and will be speaking, Goettler is telling a misleadeing half-truth – he is telling "the truth" but not "the whole truth." His account is misinformation. 

By doing so, Goettler strengthens his argument; he can imply that the LP "leadership" faction invited Trump because the "leadership" faction believes the same things as Trump. So all those nasty, unlibertarian things that Trump is responsible for can now be attributed to the LP as well. Since some at least some Trump policies have clearly been "outside the bounds of libertarianism", that puts the LP "outside the bounds of libertarianism" as well. 

But given that Kennedy will also be speaking, such an implication is clearly absurd: Trump and Kennedy have different, sometimes contradictory, beliefs about policy. It is absurd to think that the LP "leadership" faction, or anyone for that matter, believes the same things as Trump and the same things as Kennedy. (Not to mention simultaneously believing the same things as Biden, who was also invited).

So obviously Goettler had a reason to not tell the whole truth, since to do so would reveal his argument as the absurdity it is. Since that misinformation is crucial to his argument, I have to conclude that it was deliberate. His omission of facts was not merely misleading (misinformation, but deliberately misleading (disinformation). 

To be sure, I was not a fan of the convention committee's idea. As I posted on social media at the time, I thought that inviting Trump to speak was like deliberately getting oneself sprayed by a skunk: it would take a long time to get the stink off. At the time, though, I was imagining the stink coming from the usual sources – the New Republic, Mother Jones, the SPLC, MSNBC, the Niskanen Institute, and the like – not from a libertarian group like the Cato Institute. 

I have always been annoyed at libertarian individuals or groups who try to read other individuals or groups out of the libertarian movement. I am especially annoyed when one of those tries it on the Libertarian Party or its presidential campaign during an election year (as was too often tried by some during the Bob Barr and Gary Johnson campaigns). I do not dispute that those doing that are libertarian themselves, as I believe in giving other avowed libertarians a courtesy that Mr. Goettler obviously does not. But that's just my own view. Libertarians do not require my permission to criticize other libertarians. 

However, those who criticize others should not be immune from criticism themselves. And when one of them relies on misinformation and disinformation, such a criticism is most needed. 

Goettler's article can be read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/23/trump-libertarian-party-convention/

Ron Paul speaking at Libertarian Convention

Libertarian rockstar Dr. Ron Paul will give the keynote address at the Libertarian National Convention this weekend in Washington DC.

May 22, 2024 - The U.S. Libertarian Party's presidential nominating convention begins this Friday. I have to give LP National Chair Angela McCardle and the convention organizers due credit: rather than the obscure little gathering I was expecting, they've managed to put their convention at the center of political attention, due to an unorthodox selection of speakers. 

Presumptive Republican POTUS nominee Donald Trump will be addressing the Convention. So will independent POTUS candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. So will former POTUS candidate (and possible Trump running mate) Vivek Ramaswamy. Even Afroman will be there, performing his new hit single, "Hunter Got High." 

Yes, there will be libertarians speaking, too, of course.  Libertarian conventions are always chock-full of speakers on all things political. As well, both the Libertarian POTUS candidates and VPOTUS candidates (who are voted on separately) will be debating. And  in breaking news, the party announced just  yesterday that the convention's keynote speaker will be the biggest name in libertarianism still standing – Dr. Ron Paul. X has the story: 

Dr. Ron Paul to Close Out Libertarian Convention with Keynote Speech Sunday, May 26th | X: 

May 21st, 2024 — "The Libertarian National Convention will close out its 2024 event by hosting Dr. Ron Paul, a man that many in the liberty movement credit with bringing them into the fold and inspiring a freedom-centric generation.... Dr. Paul will provide the keynote address on Sunday afternoon....

"Paul served as the U.S. Representative for Texas's 14th congressional district and has run for President of the United States three times. He pursued the presidency as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012. Additionally, he is the father of Senator Rand Paul.... Tickets still available, but running low!"

https://x.com/LPNational/status/1793000472288305528

This is major news; "Yuge!" as Trump would put it. For years Libertarians have been begging to have Ron Paul speak at a national Convention; making it happen is a coup for McCardle and her administration. They are giving the party a weekend full of activity, energy, and excitement.

Whether the activity, energy, and excitement will pay off in terms of Libertarian candidates and votes this fall is less certain, but one has to say they have planned an event certain to whip up maximum enthusiasm. One can only wish them the best of luck. 

Canadian gov't unions vow 'summer of discontent'

Public Service Alliance of Canada president Chris Aylward is warning the federal government to prepare for a "summer of discontent" over its plans to require government employees to work in the office three days a week. 

Canadians Have Little Appetite for Another Public Service Union Strike | Epoch Times | Cory Morgan: 

May 17, 2024 - "In April 2023, members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) went on strike. Government services came to a near standstill as over 100,000 federal employees hit the picket lines. The strike ended with a generous settlement, with pay increases imposed retroactively to 2022 and cumulatively totalling 14.5 percent in 2024. The labour peace with Canada’s federal workers was short-lived, however. PSAC president Chris Aylward recently promised a 'summer of discontent,' saying 'the Trudeau Liberal government better prepare itself.'

"What happened to cause such rage among one of Canada’s largest unions? What terrible demand has been made of federal workers to bring about a potential summer of strife and labour action? The government is asking federal workers to come in to the office to work for three days a week.

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, both the public and private sectors created work-from-home models for employees so work could continue while under restrictions. Although most private sector companies have returned to business as usual, many public employees are only coming into the office two days a week. Some companies have kept their remote-work programs for employees, but only when it could be demonstrated that productivity can be maintained. The problem with the case being made by PSAC against having workers return to their offices is there is little indication that employees have been working productively or efficiently at all....

"The size of Canada’s federal public service has grown by over 40 percent in the last 10 years. That’s orders of magnitude above and beyond the nation’s population growth. Despite the addition of so many employees, measurable outcomes from federal services don’t show any signs of better efficiency or productivity.

"The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is one of the largest branches of the federal bureaucracy, employing nearly 60,000 people. With online tax filing tools and modern databases, one would think efficiency would improve in dealing with the CRA. Instead, waiting for hours on hold to make a simple phone inquiry is standard practice. An audit from 2017 found that once a person got through to a CRA agent, they had a 30 percent chance of getting bad advice.... If a person tries to email or write to the CRA rather than phoning, they had better be patient. The average time for a response is 53 days!...

"The CRA has roughly one employee for every 678 Canadians. By comparison, the American Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has one employee for every 4,300 Americans. While there are doubtless many inefficiencies within the IRS, how is it that it manages to function with a fraction of the equivalent employees of the CRA?

"Government services in other departments don’t fare much better than the CRA. A report from Canada’s Auditor General in March 2023 on the immigration department was scathing. Applications for permanent residency are hopelessly backed up, with sponsored refugees waiting 30 months on average for a decision on their applications, leaving tens of thousands of them in residency limbo. The same report also found that delivery of government OAS, EI, and CPP could be at risk because of outdated technology. Her report said only 38 percent of the government’s roughly 7,500 information technology systems were “healthy.” Even simple passport renewals can take months.

"Canada’s standard of living has been in decline for years as the GDP per capita continues to fall. While employment in the public sector continues to grow, private-sector employment has been stagnant. The Bank of Canada has warned that the country’s decline in productivity is an economic emergency.  As the public sector continues to grow, the private sector struggles further to fund it, leading to an economic imbalance and lowered national productivity. It’s a downward spiral....

"Rather than threatening a summer of disruptive labour action over having to go to the office three days a week, public service unions would be better served to seek efficiencies and prove to taxpayers that workers are indeed doing a good job and are worth retaining in any capacity, much less working from home.  Citizens are tired and struggling in today’s economy. They have little appetite for being put over the barrel by public service unions while taxes continue to rise. Service disruptions purposely caused by public service employees could backfire if they push Canadians too far."

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/cory-morgan-canadians-have-little-appetite-for-another-public-service-union-strike-5652024?ea_src=ca-frontpage&ea_med=top-news-opinion-0

Public sector unions warn of "summer of discontent" over govt's new in-office mandate | cpac| May 8, 2024:

Desperate Trudeau scaremongers about abortion

Unable to dent a 20-point lead in polls for the opposition Conservatives, Canada's increasingly desperate Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has resorted to the old Liberal Party tactic of scaremongering about abortion.  

Trudeau's abortion shtick reaches new lows | National Post | Chris Selley: 

May 18, 2024 - “'Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday that Canadian conservative leaders are as much of a threat to women’s right to a safe abortion as the rollback of the landmark Roe v. Wade court decision was in the United States,' the Toronto Star reported this week. I was disbelieving..... Having checked the tape, I can report that Trudeau didn’t actually say Canadian conservative leaders were as big a threat to women’s rights as the rescinding of Roe v. Wade. He said they’re a bigger threat.... 

"That’s unhinged. It’s wacko, to borrow a phrase. It’s what Liberals would call a conspiracy theory or misinformation, were it coming from the other side: Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed that his government will never 'legislate on abortion.' And it’s a bit insulting, surely, to the women in the 14 American states now living with near-total bans on abortion.... What set Trudeau off, by contrast, was the closure of Fredericton’s Clinic 554 earlier this year.... Women now must visit one of three hospitals, two in Moncton and one in Bathurst, where abortion is available on demand and gratis.... That’s the sharp end of Canada’s anti-abortion stick, legally speaking. I humbly submit the two countries’ situations aren’t even remotely comparable....

"If women’s rights are as incomplete and imperilled as you say, Prime Minister, then why not pass legislation codifying them? Two years ago Trudeau briefly even seemed open to the idea of writing something down on paper, though nothing came of it. By rights, demands for codifying abortion rights should only be growing in Canada after Roe v. Wade.... Trudeau’s fight against the forces of darkness, by contrast and as always, still seems to begin and end in front of a microphone."

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeaus-abortion-shtick-reaches-new-lows

- Toronto Star, May. 16, 2024. 

Trudeau's ongoing abortion rhetoric a sign of true desperation | Toronto Sun | Brian Lilley: 

May 18, 2024 - "If we’re talking about abortion, it must be the month of May in Canada. Each May, on the Thursday before Mother’s Day, pro-life activists march to call for an end to abortion and at the same time, Liberals go on a rampage about how only they can protect abortion. 

"This year, trailing badly in the polls, Justin Trudeau is keeping up the pro-abortion rhetoric, warning women that voting for Conservatives will put them at risk. He did that Thursday at a campaign-style stop in New Brunswick.... 'We will keep fighting for women’s rights,' Trudeau said ... as if our Supreme Court had ruled abortion a right, as it once had in the United States. That never happened in Canada, we simply have an absence of a law. But Trudeau loves to import American political issue into Canada while decrying American-style politics....

"[W]hat really has Trudeau riled up about abortion in New Brunswick is that they stopped funding abortion at a private clinic. 'The shutting down of health and reproductive services offered by Clinic 554 for the unwillingness to engage in allowing women to actually choose what happens to their future, their bodies is a disgrace,' Trudeau said. Does anyone else find it odd that Liberals are against private health care delivery if it’s for knee replacement surgery or cataracts but are all in favour of private abortion clinics? Once again, if the Trudeau Liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any at all....

"Here’s the thing about this annual fight over abortion that happens around Mother’s Day, it doesn’t matter, nothing is going to change.... We haven’t had a law on abortion in Canada since the Supreme Court struck down the old one in the Morgentaler decision in 1988. We aren’t likely to get one any time soon, despite the overheated rhetoric from the Liberals about electing a Conservative government.... Even in the Conservative Party there is no appetite to ban abortion, not among the majority. A free vote held in the Commons on a bill to restrict abortion after the sixth month mark wouldn’t even pass.

"All of the posturing, the lecturing, and the social media posts on this issue from the Trudeau Liberals and their allies in the media is simply a sign of their desperation as Liberal poll numbers fall further."

Read more: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/trudeaus-ongoing-abortion-rhetoric-a-sign-of-true-desperation

Extreme left has killed TV comedy, says Seinfeld

Jerry Seinfeld on how woke 'crap' killed comedy | Western Standard | Jen Hodgson:

April 29, 2024 - Comedian Jerry Seinfeld, star of the hit ‘90s show Seinfeld, has commented on the sad state of comedy.... Seinfeld, whose 70th birthday is Monday, told the New Yorker's David Remnick on his show Radio Hour the 'extreme left’s' attack on comedy and “PC (politically correct) crap” has all but ruined the industry for audiences and comedians alike. 

"There once was a day, Seinfeld said, where people could come home from a long day at work and expect something funny to be on television each night, such as Cheers, M.A.S.H., and All in the Family  — now, though human nature still craves comic relief, it’s nowhere to be found. 

“'Nothing really affects comedy. People always need it. They need it so badly and they don't get it,' said Seinfeld. 'Well, guess what? Where is it? This is the result of the extreme left and PC crap and people worrying so much about offending other people.'

"Seinfeld almost a decade ago started warning other comedians about performing at college campuses. They are becoming too politically correct, he said in 2015, per the Daily Mail. The stand-up comedian however said there is still hope for people to get their laughs on without being smacked down by the woke mob. 

“'Now they're going to see stand-up comics because they are not policed by anyone. The audience polices us. We know when we're off track. We know instantly. And we adjust to it instantly,' said Seinfeld. 'But when you write a script, and it goes into four or five different hands, committees, groups … well, that's the end of your comedy.

"'With certain comedians now, people are having fun with them stepping over the line, and us all laughing about it. But again, it's the stand-ups that really have the freedom to do it because no one else gets the blame if it doesn't go down well. He or she can take all the blame.'"

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/watch-jerry-seinfeld-on-how-woke-crap-killed-comedy/54165

Jerry Seinfeld Says Extreme Left Is RUINING TV Comedy; Calls It 'PC CRAP' | The Hill | April 29, 2024: 

USDA funding bird flu gain-of-function research

A U.S. Senator has raised the alarm over U.S.-Chinese bird flu research funded by the US Department of Agriculture that reportedly includes gain-of-fuction experiments. But the USDA and scientists involved insist there is no threat to people.   

Lawmaker raises new flap over U.S.-funded virology research that critics call risky | Science | Jon Cohen:

February 16, 2024 - "A U.S. senator has thrown a political spotlight on yet another U.S.-Chinese research collaboration that critics suggest includes dangerous experiments that could create 'superviruses' capable of sparking a pandemic. But contrary to assertions raised by Senator Joni Ernst (R–IA), none of the U.S. funding for the project goes to foreign researchers, and scientists who are part of the collaboration challenge other concerns she raised. And the U.S. funding agency she questioned this week issued a blistering response.

"Prompted by information given to her by a group that opposes animal research, the White Coat Waste Project, Ernst on 14 February sent a letter to the head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that said she was 'troubled' to learn about an avian influenza study its researchers are conducting with scientists at the United Kingdom’s Roslin Institute and China’s Institute of Microbiology. USDA approved the $1 million grant in 2020 to better understand the evolution of newly emerged avian influenza viruses.... The letter focuses on experiments in the study that repeatedly pass viruses through birds and laboratory cell cultures, which Ernst writes is a '"gain-of-function" technique that can create a pathogen that can more easily jump species.' 

"For more than a decade, debates have focused on defining what constitutes a gain-of-function study, and the question has recently heated up because of unproven assertions that researchers working with bat coronaviruses created SARS-CoV-2, the pandemic coronavirus. Ernst [who] sits on an agriculture committee that oversees USDA ... explicitly links the USDA study to U.S.-funded work with bat coronaviruses that took place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. She notes some U.S. intelligence experts contend SARS-CoV-2 escaped, or leaked, from the facility.... 'Alarmingly,' she adds, the 'Biden USDA' grant is funding a Chinese researcher who is affiliated with WIV.

"In an email, a USDA spokesperson said, 'USDA’s funding is only being committed to the specific components carried out by our own team located in Athens, Georgia, and is not any way contributing to research taking place in the U.K. or China.' What is more, the spokesperson added, 'what Senator Ernst lays out in her letter is far off base from what’s actually transpiring, and on top of that is based on approval decisions that predate this Administration.' If the senator has concerns about USDA research, the spokesperson advised, 'she should reach out to us directly before putting misinformation in a press release or public letter.'

"The collaboration’s Chinese partner, Liu Wenjun, is with the Institute of Microbiology, and though he was part of a multi-institution project with WIV, Liu says that has ended. 'The purpose of three countries collaborating is to exchange the research data through the surveillance and transparency to combat this global infectious virus transmission,' Liu said in an email. 'We hope the public understands the purpose of our collaboration is to control global diseases.'

"Roslin virologist Paul Digard, the lead U.K. investigator in the collaboration, says there are several other misleading details in the letter. 'Not only is there no transfer of money between the countries, there’s no transfer of reagents or materials,' Digard says. As important, Digard says the collaborators are not attempting to passage viruses to make them more transmissible in birds or mammals, ... he says. 'This is very much focused on transmission from wild birds to poultry, and how the long-range dynamics of that reflects the sequences of the virus.' The researchers are also evaluating the impact of influenza vaccines on poultry.

"Ernst’s letter focused on one experiment that uses Japanese quail, an unusual avian species that has receptors for both human and bird flu viruses. The quail, the researchers note, can be an 'indicator species' of the potential a flu virus has to jump into mammalian hosts. Digard says concerns about the quail studies are misplaced as the critics confuse the dangers posed by different types of flu viruses, only some of which can cause serious disease. The quail studies only involve flu viruses with so-called low pathogenicity.

"Critics of gain-of-function research, however, say the intent of an experiment isn’t the key factor. If an experiment could create more dangerous viruses, they contend it should be subject to intensive review before being allowed to proceed."

Read more: https://www.science.org/content/article/lawmaker-raises-new-flap-over-u-s-funded-virology-research-critics-call-risky

NEW PANDEMIC, Avian Flu Could KILL 60% Of People, Lab Did GAIN OF FUNCTION To Make It Infect Mammals | Timcast | February 16, 2023: 
(note: this is a year-old video based on a different Science report):

Public drug use recriminalized in British Columbia

On the request of the provincial government, Canada's federal government has exempted public spaces from British Columbia's pilot drug decriminalization program. 

Personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal drugs in British Columbia | Health Canada | Backgrounder:

May 07, 2024 - "On January 31, 2023, a subsection 56(1) exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) related to personal possession of certain controlled substances came into effect in the province of British Columbia (BC). After a thorough assessment, this exemption was granted by the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health to support the province in implementing its comprehensive public health response to the overdose crisis. The pilot project was planned to be in effect until January 31, 2026.

"Under the original exemption, adults aged 18 years of age and older in BC could not be arrested or charged for the possession of a cumulative amount of up to 2.5 grams of opioids (e.g. heroin, morphine, and fentanyl), cocaine (including crack and powder cocaine), methamphetamine (meth), or MDMA (ecstasy) for personal use. Exceptions to this exemption were included so that it did not apply in places where the provincial and federal government determined that personal possession would create undue public safety concerns (e.g. airports, daycares, schools, etc.).

"As the first exemption of its kind in Canada, ongoing monitoring was conducted to inform whether it contributed to its objectives, which included reducing stigma and substance use harms and increasing access to health and social services for people who use drugs in BC.

"In September 2023, at the request of British Columbia, the original exemption was amended to prohibit possession in additional areas designed primarily for youth including, within 15 metres of a public outdoor playground, spray pool or wading pool, or skate park. This came into effect on September 18, 2023.

"Since the exemption came into effect in January 2023, a number of BC municipalities, law enforcement officials, health sector workers, and community members have raised concerns about increasing public drug use and that law enforcement does not have tools to address public drug use. On April 26, 2024, BC submitted an amendment request to address these concerns. As of May 7, 2024, we are granting BC’s request to prohibit possession of controlled substances in public spaces. 

"Exemptions will continue to apply in private residences, healthcare clinics as designated by the province of BC, places where people are lawfully sheltering, and overdose prevention and drug checking sites.

"This exemption is an additional tool that the federal government is providing to BC to help support a balanced public health and public safety approach to addressing the overdose crisis and substance use. The Government of Canada continues to take a comprehensive approach to addressing substance use harms and the overdose crisis."

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2024/05/personal-possession-of-small-amounts-of-certain-illegal-drugs-in-british-columbia.html

BC to recriminalize hard drug use in public spaces | Global News | May 7, 2024:

Trudeau gov't has politicized 'terrorist' designation

Canada's Trudeau gov't has been reluctant to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (which has killed Canadian citizens) or Samidoun (which supports Hamas, which has killed Canadian citizens) as terrorist entities. Yet it did not hesitate to apply the designation to an alleged "far-right" group of Canadians with zero history of violence. 

Canadian Proud Boys in Halifax, July 1. 2017. Anjuli Patil, CBC.

How the Trudeau Liberals crushed a harmless group of oddballs and politicized Canada’s selection of terrorist entities | True North | John Kline: 

May 13, 2024 - "The Justin Trudeau government is still agonizing over whether to 'responsibly list' Iran’s murderous Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization.... The IRGC’s thousands of innocent victims include 63 Canadians killed when the IRGC shot down Ukraine International Airlines flight PS572 near Tehran’s airport. The Trudeau government is even less interested in going after Samidoun, a pro-Hamas terrorist-linked group that’s actually headquartered in Vancouver. Yet it hesitated not at all in crushing a small group of Canadian oddballs who had broken no laws and disavowed violence and racism. 

"These were the Canadian wing of the Proud Boys, a mainly U.S. organization some of whose members participated in the U.S. Capitol Building riot three years ago. The Canadian group was pronounced a 'terrorist entity' a month later. But new Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) research recently conducted by a fellow researcher and myself, and published for the first time here and in C2C Journal, reveals virtually the entire surrounding Liberal narrative as exaggerated if not false:

• Neither the Proud Boys’ Canadian chapter nor any of its members are known to have broken any laws before or since the organization’s terror entity designation on February 3, 2021;
• There’s no indication Canada’s Department of Justice prepared the dossier of evidence that, as Public Safety Canada’s anti-terrorism-related web pages explain, is required before any group can be designated a terrorist entity.... There’s no evidence this was done afterwards, either. There’s no evidence any such dossier exists at all;
• Trudeau’s ministers held no other apparent evidence to substantiate their heated public accusations that the Canadian Proud Boys had engaged in violence, were planning to do so and posed a substantial threat thereof;
• The Trudeau government showed no interest in the Proud Boys until after the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.... 
• Following Canada’s terrorist listing, Public Safety officials were unable to muster any compelling reasons or hard evidence in support despite persistent questioning from news media;
• Substantially all of their “evidence” comprised U.S. news media reports pertaining to events and organizations in the U.S.; and,
• The terrorist designation did not trigger any known law enforcement action against the Canadian chapters or their former members....

"Ottawa urgently needed to act, insisted Public Safety Minister Bill Blair.... But the Liberals had nothing on the Proud Boys. No violent acts, no criminal records, no bomb-making plans, no law-breaking at all. Their most aggressive act came when five of them – five – expressed concern over the impending destruction of a statue of one of Canada’s most important historical figures in Halifax on Canada Day 2017, offending some Indigenous activists. For this – and for not hating Western civilization – the Proud Boys were routinely maligned as 'white supremacist', 'misogynistic' or 'far-rightist'....

"Canada’s Proud Boys appear to have been designated terrorists mostly because incoming U.S. President Joe Biden needed help in building the Democratic narrative that the J6 riot was a 'violent insurrection'. Canada’s move, indeed, was instant news in D.C. and, the ATIP documents show, was discussed in a cabinet-level meeting between the two governments.... 

"Further circumstantial evidence that it was a purely political act is the absence of subsequent law enforcement action against the Proud Boys. Normally, a terror designation unleashes the legal hounds of hell upon the target, everything from property and asset seizures to placing members on no-fly lists, to comprehensive surveillance and harassment, and onward to criminal charges. But none of this happened.... Nor is there any criminal or civil case law involving Canadian Proud Boys members indicated on Canada’s free case-search website.... 

"Still, the Trudeau government crushed Canada’s Proud Boys (who announced their dissolution in May 2021, reiterating they were never a white-supremacist group). Based not on a carefully assembled dossier of hard evidence, but on ideological prejudice and media reports – many exaggerated, distorted or plain false – about a U.S. group whose Canadian affiliate had nothing to do with any of it. If that’s how things now work in Canada, one can only ask: who might be next?"

Read more: https://tnc.news/2024/05/13/op-ed-trudeau-liberals-terrorist-entities/

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.
https://c2cjournal.ca/2024/04/not-much-to-be-proud-of-how-the-liberals-politicized-canadas-selection-of-terrorist-entities/