Petersen had this to say about Ashcroft possibly running for Governor, “Exciting news to see… I don’t like many politicians – very, very few – and I like the Ashcrofts. Jay Ashcroft seems to be a little bit more fiscally conservative then the senior.” This was in reference to Jay Ashcroft being the son of former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Petersen’s co-host, John Marsh, mentioned that Jay Ashcroft has not discussed future plans since last year when Ashcroft said, “After intense, prayerful consideration we have decided to remain devoted to the work Missouri voters have entrusted me as secretary of state” in regards to running for United States Senate, to replace the senior senator from Missouri, Senator Roy Blunt.

Petersen and Marsh also discussed Ashcroft’s recent conservative positions, many posted on the KWOS website, including being opposed to the gas tax increase that the Missouri Legislature passed last year. Current Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed that gas tax increase into law.

Jay Ashcroft has yet to release a public statement regarding the breaking news yesterday morning.

The full segment from the show can be listened to below.

The post Is Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft Laying Groundwork for 2024 Gubernatorial Run? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Governors in states such as Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, and others have put in place rules saying that abortion is not an essential service in order to preserve personal protection equipment (PPE) for essential medical procedures and combating COVID-19. Expectedly, Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates are now suing said states in order to preserve the “right to an abortion” which they deem essential.

Medical facilities across the nation actually started suspending elective procedures. So why what was previously a “choice” and “elective” procedure suddenly turned into an “essential” procedure?

The truth of it is abortion has always been ‘essential’ to Planned Parenthood, but COVID-19 has exposed this and the fact that they cannot hit their bottom line without abortion. It is widely claimed that abortion is only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does; however, that statistic is massively misleading. For every woman that comes in to obtain an abortion, Planned Parenthood must do a pregnancy test. If that test comes back positive, in certain states, they must perform an ultrasound, and in other states, they must then do an abortion consultation to tell women about the risks of abortion, and then finally perform the abortion.

Simple math shows that Planned Parenthood was able to benefit from dividing their numbers at least four different times, making the actual number somewhere around 24% of the services they provide, when the service the woman actually came in for was an abortion. Additionally, since 1987, the majority of Planned Parenthood’s clinic income has come from abortion.

Don’t believe me? Perhaps former Planned Parenthood employees may be able to convince you, such as former clinic director Abby Johnson, who said “For my clinic specifically, we were required to perform 1,135 abortions per year, so we’re selling those abortions to pregnant women who are coming in. At Planned Parenthood, one of their mottos is that every telephone call and every client visit must be turned into a revenue generating visit. Well, the only way to make a profit off a pregnant woman is to sell her an abortion, because Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide any prenatal care.”

Or another former Planned Parenthood director Sue Thayer, who said when her clinic didn’t meet their abortion quota they had to have an “action plan” in order to make up for the loss.

The fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood could not function without abortion. If nothing else, take their most recent actions as an example. They have had some facilities stop all procedures except abortion.

Planned Parenthood profits from abortion, plain and simple. Instead of providing desired and needed PPE to hospitals around the country, they continue to provide a service that they have always defined as a “choice” and it is costing real human lives.

The post Abortion is ‘Essential’, but Only for Planned Parenthood appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

I didn’t fully understand the science, but I did understand that there was a human being there, that killing it would be murder, and that murder is awful. It wasn’t until years later that I started to truly understand the biology of the matter; the fact that at the moment of conception, a new, completely separate human being from the mother and father exists.

Now, at the ripe old age of 19, I have an even greater understanding that every human being has inalienable rights that are inherent as human beings – those being the right to life, liberty, and property. I believe those rights come from God but my Atheist and Agnostic friends believe they are naturally occurring. Either way, they undeniably exist, and were recognized by the Founding Fathers from our nation’s beginning.

However, some argue that even if there is a human life, that the baby forced itself there, making it a violation of property rights. I will be arguing against this perspective.

Let’s start with the reason that the vast majority of abortions are performed. Convenience.

Say there is a salesman out there that gives out a “product” that allows you to experience some of the best feelings for several minutes. It doesn’t cost much to acquire this product, just that you have to sign a contract saying this salesman gets to experience this product with you for however long it lasts. After that, both the salesman and the product purchaser can decide if that salesman gets to hang around and establish a working relationship with you or walk out.

For this example, we will have the salesman leave the next day. Well, that’s awesome. It seems like everything is fine. Then about a month later, you realize some things are getting weird in your house. Rooms are randomly messy, the thermostat is always getting messed with, doors are unlocked, etc. So you go out and get a “home tester” and test your house to see what the heck is wrong, just to find out there is some random stranger that has been living with you for the last month or so.  You wonder, “How the heck did this person get in here,” so you start rethinking your last month of all these occurrences, trying to figure out what the heck happened.

Then you remember your time using that product provided by the salesman, and the warnings from your mother saying that when signing the contracts provided for said product, there is always a slight chance that a random person may show up in your home for forty weeks. That person had no choice to be there or not. They just kind of showed up after you signed the contract and enjoyed the “product.”

You don’t have to do too much while they’re there, just buy a little bit more food and experience discomforts in your home for that period of time.  They also can’t survive outside of your home, and at the end of the nine months you can continue to take care of them or give them to another home that wants them.

Do you have the right to kill that person or force them out in order to start enjoying your home again? Of course not. You willingly signed that contract that said that person may or may not show up. It is not their fault that you were  looking for a nice experience and not ready for them to show up.

It is not a mystery to people that every time they have sex there is a possibility that they may conceive a child. They are actively making the decision to agree to an unwritten contract to prepare for this possibility and the accompanying responsibilities.

If the child is at risk of having physical or mental deformities, or if they’ll grow up poor and in a crummy situation, does that give you the right to kill them? No, it does not.

Let’s look at the risk of the mother’s life being lost as well. Although that only makes up .27% of abortions, pro-abortion advocates will bring it up. Lets go back to my analogy.

So, now you have a professional (doctor) come in and do routine check ups on the sturdiness of your house and the well-being of the person living there. They let you know that there is now a slight chance that the person might just burn the house down, but that the professional has a procedure to kill the person and get them out of your house (although it’s actually safer to just have them leave and try to live in a makeshift house temporarily). This was also in the contract – that there is an even smaller chance that once this person shows up, they can possibly burn your house down. Do you have the choice to kill them then? Again, of course not. You signed the contract, knowing the risks.

Yes, the mothers life being at risk is incredibly scary and sad. However, there is a difference between having an abortion, and seeking treatment for something that puts the mother’s life at risk. In fact, according to Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist, it is never medically necessary to have an abortion, and it’s in fact safer to deliver the baby early through C-section or early induction.

Of course, lets look at the elephant in the room and address the case of rape, which only makes up .14% of abortions.

Say this salesman approaches you, and asks you to use this product with them. You say no and do not consent, so they forge your signature on the contract and force you to take the product with them. You get no enjoyment out of this because you were forced into it, but that person still shows up and starts messing with your home. Do you have the right to kill them and get them out of your home?

Some would say that because you did not willingly sign that contract, take the product, or enjoy the product,  you have every right to kill that person as you didn’t agree to them being there. I completely understand that argument, and it is the only one that I can say I do. However, I do not agree with it.

This circumstance can really bring morals into question, as the woman was forced into this situation and wants nothing to do with it. I sympathize with that woman, and truly feel bad for her. But that baby, that human being, had no choice in being there either. The man that raped this woman should be locked up for life. But one tragedy does not justify another of killing and ending a human life with the same rights to life, liberty, and property as everyone else.

Ultimately, we as a culture need to step up. Yes, women do fall into sad circumstances. Sometimes because they were irresponsible. Other times because they were forced into a horrible situation. We need to step up and support these women.

You can find a list of pregnancy resource centers in my home state that help women here.  You can support these organizations, but you should alsolook up pregnancy resource centers in your own home states and support them through financial or voluntary means.

Let’s not only make abortion illegal, but unthinkable because of the support we can provide these women when they are in these frightening, life-changing situations

The post Why Abortion Should be Illegal: A Contractual Perspective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In all seriousness, I went to the Democrat debates in Iowa all the way from St Louis in order to bring light to the fact that one of the biggest unions in America, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), has several cases of sexual harassment against them and it’s being ignored by the media. I ended up sticking around for a few more hours because I wanted to gain some insights on different candidates, their followers, and campaigns.

What I Learned:

1. The Iowa caucuses are either not nearly as big of a deal as people make them out to be, or no one is excited for the Democrat primaries.

I arrived about two hours before the debate started, expecting supporters to come out in droves, but there were maybe 500 people on campus for the debate. Even less once the debate started as people went home.

2. The campaigns that you might think are dead are actually still full of energy, but the media isn’t covering them.

One fine, but expected, example was the ‘Yang Gang’. A group of his followers were walking around the campus in less than 20 degree weather, shouting chants, singing, dancing, literally anything in order to get some media attention. That’s not to say it helped them as most of it was incredibly cringy, but I commend their efforts.

The Klobuchar campaign was one I didn’t expect much enthusiasm from, but prior to the debate there was a decently sized group marching around the campus, loudly proclaiming their support for Klobuchar. The reason I was surprised is because the media really hasn’t been covering her.

The mainstream media seem to be covering the moderates that are expected to win, and every now and again they unfairly cover the more radical candidates that aren’t expected to win, such as Gabbard or Yang. Klobuchar seems to be moderate by Dem standards, but just doesn’t get the coverage that Warren and Biden get, so many don’t expect her win and I agree with that sentiment.

3. This is just my overall impression of the three campaign watch parties that were on campus.

Warren, by far, had the largest turnout and was the most diverse in terms of age. I saw people as young as college students all the way up to Baby Boomer age at her watch party.

Klobuchar had a decent turnout, probably anywhere from 50-75, but hers was much more formal with dinner tables set up and alcoholic drinks available. The vast majority of people in attendance at her watch party seemed to be white and middle aged or older.

Buttigieg’s watch party had an even lower turnout with only around 40 people. It was in a literal movie theater on campus (video below), which I really don’t think helps his whole “wine cave fundraiser” look right now.

In terms of race, all of the watch parties were really lacking minorities. Out of the roughly 100 people I saw at Warren’s party only 10 or so were minorities, I only saw one at Klobuchar’s party, and only one or two at Buttigieg’s. Buttigieg, however, did have a decent showing of the LGBT community.

Warren’s campaign was the only one actually good at collecting the names of supporters because they required people to sign in before they entered the party. The Buttigieg and Klobuchar campaigns were incredibly passive, and if that continues, it will cost them.

4. All of the parties were full of people that I am convinced severely lack original thoughts. Any idea suggested by their candidate, no matter how bad an idea or if they only recently started supporting that idea because it’s politically convenient *cough* (being anti-war) *cough* garnered massive shouts of joy and applause. Possibly the only thing these people worship more than the candidate they were there to support, is the State that they all want to continue to grow and oppress all.

5. The people I thought that I would trigger and I thought would hate me were actually incredibly civil. For those that don’t know me, I am a fairly libertarian, straight, devout Catholic that doesn’t hate Donald Trump.

I met one person, who was, by their own definition, a “far-left, non-binary, atheist that didn’t care who got nominated as long as they would beat that f*cker (Donald Trump).” Upon finding out I was a Trump supporting libertarian Republican, this person was a little surprised, but didn’t really change their opinion of me. We sat there for 45 minutes and had a civil discussion about politics, where we agree, funny campaign stories, where there is miscommunication between the two sides, and much more.

It gave me hope for humanity as we sat there, complete opposites, but talking as if we’d been good friends for a while. Before I left I told them we should stay in touch, if for nothing else than just that it’s cool to meet another civil human being. So we agreed to follow each other on Twitter and that’s when they told me something that frustrated me.

My new acquaintance joked in a very serious way that following me would get them “cancelled” because I am so “extreme” in my views. The left truly isn’t made up of all of these extremists that want to silence the right, and anyone that is even slightly friendly and willing to listen to us.

I urge everyone everyone to call this crap out. When you see someone getting ‘cancelled’, no matter how much you disagree with them, attack the people doing the cancelling. It may just be some far right winger today, but we’ve seen how the left always starts there and slowly moves into taking out the more moderate. Defend freedom of expression before it’s gone.

7. Finally, Elizabeth Warren was kind enough to give her supporters a preview of the food supply under her economic system.

Images: Gage Skidmore

The post What I Learned While at the Iowa Democrat Debate appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

When asked why, he responded with,  “My campaign really just wasn’t on the up and up, so I have decided to take my efforts and go completely under. Twenty-Thousand Leagues Under to be exact.”

When asked to clarify, Beto said “I have decided to become a scuba diver. Despite being ‘born for this’, I believe the easiest way for me to take everyone’s guns and protect schools from gun violence is to become a scuba diver.” It was never made clear if he meant educational schools, or schools of fish.

He continued with, “I have had multiple tweets come to me from proud gun owners saying that they lost their guns in a boating accident. I simply cannot allow the chance for any legally law abiding gun owning citizen to retrieve those when the Warren administration comes to take their other guns, or even when the Trump administration comes for the bump stocks.” Some of the tweets O’Rourke mentioned are below.

The post Beto Drops Out of Race, Vows to Retrieve Guns Lost in Boating Accidents appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Some attribute the dropping number of Catholics in America to being so well off in terms of our economy, technology, and other luxuries compared to other countries. Although I won’t deny that is a factor, I believe that the Catholics proposing a new law every time something bad happens are much more to blame. In fact, I would assert that these advancements have made Catholics lazy, so that they would rather let the government take care of problems, rather than step up and do it themselves.

Lets look at charity and the welfare state. As far back as 1955, we see a decline in Catholicism in the US following years of the New Deal putting forth economic welfare programs, and as the Eisenhower administration is adding disability insurance to social security. Yet, this was praised by Catholics, as many believed the charities at the time had been stretched to their fullest extent due to the Great Depression, and the government helping people is charitable.

What those Catholics advocating for those welfare programs then and even larger programs now fail to understand is that this does not help people. Government welfare programs are not nearly as effective as private charities, and in fact hurt private charities’ ability to help people. For example,  last year a soup kitchen in Kansas City had government officials pour bleach in food meant for the homeless, because “the volunteers preparing and serving food didn’t have permits.”

Another result of the government getting involved in “helping” the poor is that the private industry has less funding to put towards charities due to higher taxes and increased prices needed to pay for said programs.

Above all else, the government does not use voluntary means to fund these programs. It is only through taxes, under the threat of imprisonment by the government, at the end of a gun that people comply to fund these programs that Catholics are under the impression will help people. This is not charity in the slightest, and isn’t even close to Christian and Catholic values.

Conservatives, you’re not without sin in this, either. While it is true that most of the policies I listed above are touted by much more liberal Catholics, your constant desire to use the state to establish a moral code is no better.

Your crusades against weed, prostitution, and having the government involved in marriage has not helped the church at all. Saint Thomas Aquinas would actually agree with me as well, as in his Summa Theologica he states,

“Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.”

The desire to establish the perfect government theocracy where everyone is moral, respects each other, and follows God’s teachings is understandable. What Catholic conservatives fail to realize is that the perfect theocracy cannot be run by imperfect men (i.e. every man ever); thus, we should instead wait for God’s return when that perfect theocracy will be established.

The second we start to advocate for a government that establishes the moral code, we risk the men running that government turning the tables on us and making our religion illegal, such as they have in China, burning bibles, churches, and forcing Christians to renounce their faith.

How would they do this you might ask? Well, we do believe that at every mass we are consuming the body and blood of Christ, clearly making us a threat because we are not psychologically stable. Or they look at any random scandal from recent years, and use that to lie to fabricate a justification in order to protect others from us.

Ultimately, big government policies continue to exist because Catholics have become lazy, making Americans turn from the Church and toward the government. We would rather the needy and misguided get help and direction from the government instead of getting on our own two feet, going to these communities in need, and helping them.

This has done nothing but create a much more dangerous religion compared to any others throughout history. The government giving out these resources and setting the moral standard has created the religion of Statism. A religion that operates and grows based purely on force, but justifies it’s actions for the “common good.”

We must stand up to Statism, empty our pockets to charities, and go to those communities in need that lack morality. We need to set the example that we have been taught by the Church. Perhaps by following our lead, they will cross the Tiber, come home to Rome, and grow the Church further.

“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought”

–Saint John Paul II

The post Big Government Catholics Are Destroying the Church appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

This is after roughly three days of controversy.

The day before it was passed out of the Missouri Senate, changes were made to the original bill, spurring some pro-life activists to release senators’ personal cell phone numbers in order to discourage senate leadership from changing the bill, as their office voice mail boxes were full.

Once it was passed out of the senate, many republicans rejoiced, and were met with vile tweets from leftists suggesting killing and raping the legislators and members of their families.

Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman, who was recently a target of fake news, tweeted a photo of herself and other female legislators.

She and other legislators were then attacked with death threats, and rape threats were made against her children.

Others that fell victim to these vile types of tweets were members of the Missouri Senate Conservative Caucus, or the”Conservative Six,” Eric Burlison and Bob Onder, and Missouri’s floor leader Rob Vescovo.

Pro-abortion protestors repeatedly disrupted debate in the House, and gathered outside the governor’s office and roamed the halls, yelling and chanting.

The bill, that some are referring to as “the most pro-life bill in the nation” is now headed to Governor Mike Parson’s desk, where he is expected to sign it.

The post Missouri Pro Lifers Under Threat Beef up Security appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The video implies that Representative Coleman would oppose a measure to forbid law enforcement from shackling women in labor. What the video doesn’t display is that the proposed amendment was on a budget bill, which is not the place for a law enforcement law. Furthermore, Representative Coleman actually sponsored HB 1122, which not only would do exactly what the previously mentioned amendment would do, but Lavender did not feel bothered to cosponsor. The hypocrisy and lies are blatant at this point from Lavender.

This resulted in an outpouring of support for Representative Coleman on Twitter.

If you think Representative Lavender should apologize to Representative Coleman for spreading fake news and immediately remove this video, you can call her at 573-751-4069 and email her at Deb.Lavender@house.mo.gov

The post Missouri Democrat Caught Spreading Fake News to Discredit Pro-life Representative appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Rep. McCreery, the sponsor, spoke for the bill saying, “Those who are violent do not deserve to be able to keep their weapons because they’re no longer law-abiding citizens. To me, this is a public safety issue,”

The Republican Chairman of the committee, Dean Plocher, had this to say in support of it, “It clearly addresses a concern needed to address a problem that was inadvertently created,” Plocher told The Missouri Times, adding “it’s only logical” dangerous individuals should not have firearms. “People should feel safe.”

If this bill is passed by the General Laws Committee,  it will go to the Rules Committee to be voted on.  It would then go to Speaker Haahr, who would refer it to be put on the calendar. The body would then perfect and vote on it.

It is unlikely to pass both chambers this year, but if it gets out of committee, that’s traction for next year, which will make it harder to beat then.

If you would like to read the summary of the bill, you can do so here, and the full bill here.

Join us in helping shut down this Second Amendment violation by contacting the representatives on the General Laws Committee below, or you can copy and paste their emails from here.

The post Gun Grab Alert! MO Red Flag Bill Moving Forward appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

As someone that wasn’t old enough to remember 9/11, watching the central spire fall really gave me a brief glimpse of how bad that day was. Is this equivalent to the thousands of lives lost that day? No, but the heart break I had can only have me imagining the feeling. 

There are things we can get out of this though, and not everything was gloom and doom yesterday.

First, there are still things that can unite people. Republicans and Democrats, Catholic or not, put aside their differences to offer support to French and Catholics around the world.

Not just in America either, Vladimir Putin even made statements of helping the French restore Notre Dame. That is beautiful to me, and gives me some hope in humanity.

Vladimir Putin expressed the hope that the #NotreDame cathedral can be restored, and offered to send to #France the best Russian specialists with extensive experience in restoring world cultural heritage sites

https://t.co/XXPzm7oK0J pic.twitter.com/Et8XysfztA— Russia in USA ???????? (@RusEmbUSA) April 16, 2019

By far, the most beautiful site of the day though was when Perisians gathered in the streets and started singing “Ave Maria” a prayer to the Virgin Mary. It was incredibly moving, and revitalized my faith for The Church in France. 

A graphic was just released today, detailing the entirety of the damage. 

Several French businessmen have also started promising to donate millions of Euros to revitalize Notre Dame to its former glory. This more than anything gives me hope, that Notre Dame will be rebuilt, and that because of this struggle we have come closer as a civilization. 

If you would like to donate to the restoration of this amazing piece of art, and dedication to Western Civilization, you can donate to the “French Heritage Society” fundraising efforts, specifically for Notre Dame, here. 

The post One Young Catholic’s View of the Tragedy of Notre Dame appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.