It will be a trying time since the loudest voices will seek retribution against Democrats through much-needed investigations. Undertake a few very well-structured investigations to expose the corruption in the Biden administration, but, please do not forget your Commitment to America. Some of it can be accomplished with control of only the House. Republicans promised to right the ship of state. You will be doing this for the country, not to satisfy primal urges of revenge.

As part of your Commitment to America, you pledged to “Curb wasteful government spending that is raising the price of groceries, gas, cars, and housing and growing our national debt.” A similar promise was made by the Republicans in its1994 Contract with America. The national debt in January 1994 was $4.4 trillion. The national debt in 2022 is almost $31 trillion. Most concerning, Republican administrations increased the national debt during that period by $14.05 trillion, about 53.6% of its increase. Democrats increased the national debt by $12.15 trillion, about 46.4% of the additional debt in that period.

Worst still, 97% of our national debt has increased dramatically since the end of the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the last president to preside over a national debt of less than a trillion dollars. In those forty years, using fiscal year calculations, the Republicans added $17.46 trillion to the national debt (59%), and the Democrats added $12.15 trillion (41%). It is imperative that the national debt matter to Republicans when they have the power to do something about it. Pontificating about it on cable television is not sufficient.

Interest payments on the national debt over the next 30 years are estimated to exceed $66 trillion. Each taxpayer’s share of the national debt today is $245,191. The average personal income in the U.S. is $63,211. If Americans are concerned with inflation, wait until they get the bill for the national debt. The national debt will become so burdensome to future generations that it will undermine democracy. If the federal government taxed current citizens the amounts needed to pay for today’s government, a tax revolt would topple the government.

How did the government put us in this position?

The framework of our Constitution has few guardrails for the type of government formed by our elected leaders. Today’s federal government combination of capitalist, socialist, oligarchy, kakistocracy, and woke cult. Moreover, the federal government can tax us as much as it needs to satisfy its wants. From 1932 to 1981, the marginal tax rate in the U.S. ranged between 63% – 91%.

Since it is unlikely, we will pay off the national debt in our lifetimes, our federal government and every American must recognize, we are living on the future productivity of those who have no say in creating our debt. The national debt is unjust to those who will have to pay tomorrow for our spending today.

What can House Republicans do today without control of the presidency?

Our Constitution reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

For Congress to spend more of the taxpayer’s money, it must appropriate new money by enacting a law that requires the approval of both Houses of Congress and a Presidential signature. To spend no money, however, one House of Congress merely needs to do nothing. No provision in the Constitution gives anyone the power to force Congress to spend money. Moreover, Congress is the only government institution controlling the nation’s purse. The House of Representatives can shut the purse.

A few simple ideas for a Republican House to cut almost one trillion dollars from the budget by Just Saying “No.”

Do not fund unauthorized laws. Almost a half-trillion in savings can be achieved by following congressional rules prohibiting the funding of laws that are not authorized. All Congress needs to do is refuse to fund unauthorized laws.

The Congressional Budget Office annually issues a report on “Expired and Expiring Authorizations of Appropriations” for the Fiscal Year. While CBO prepares this report according to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the report is to assist lawmakers in complying with House rules by identifying unauthorized laws that should not be funded. Its 2022 report identifies 1,118 authorizations of appropriations that expired before the beginning of FY 2022 and an additional 111 that will expire during FY 2022.

CBO estimates Congress appropriated $461 billion in 2022 to fund unauthorized laws. Moreover, CBO identifies each committee of Congress that has failed to authorize laws under its jurisdiction and the amount of money appropriated to fund these unauthorized statutes. Forty-four percent of the unauthorized laws being funded expired over a decade ago. If Congress is unwilling to review these laws and reauthorize them, that lack of interest alone should be sufficient to let them expire.

Reduce agency budgets for refusing to provide Congress with the information requested. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee federal agencies. Many times, however, federal agencies refuse to provide Congress with the information requested. Usually, Congress, especially the party in opposition to the Executive, must live with the refusal until a president from its party occupies the White House. Then matters are reversed. One mechanism for addressing this issue would be for the House of Representatives to reduce the agency’s appropriations by some percentage each time an agency fails to provide the information requested.

Use spending power as bargaining power. Since Congress cannot be compelled to spend money on any activity, it needs to leverage this power to ensure the Executive implements the policies Congress enacted. From day one the Biden administration refused to protect the southern border of the United States. The border is open to all comers, no matter how much the Republicans complain. By being in charge of the House, however, Republicans have solid leverage to negotiate with the administration by withholding money for programs Biden deems essential.

The leverage should be the Department of Education (“DOE”) since it is owned and operated by Biden’s most significant political supporters, the teachers’ unions. The DOE is a perpetual pay-off to the teachers’ unions. The teachers’ unions donated $43 million to liberal groups in the 2020 election cycle.

By controlling DOE, teachers’ unions foster the teaching of Critical Race Theory, impose mask mandates, and torture children’s minds by telling them they are born racists. The mere possibility of the teachers’ unions losing this power will likely persuade Democrats to accept the reality that building the border wall and enforcing immigration laws is a cheap price to pay to keep DOE.

If Biden concedes, the House Republicans will get the border wall and immigration enforcement. If Biden refuses to negotiate, the Republicans get to eliminate the agency they have wanted to eliminate since 1980, when it was created.

Require all federal agencies to implement GAO’s Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) or suffer budget cuts. Congress mandates GAO to perform a GAAP analysis of federal spending and assets and provide recommendations to ensure the financial reporting by the agency is transparent and consistent. One specific GAO recommendation is for all agencies to address the government-wide improper payments, estimated to be $175 billion. A Republican House should refuse to fund agencies failing to implement this recommendation.

By implementing these four recommendations, Republicans can reduce the budget by over $850 billion. Only time will tell if Republicans mean what they promise in their Commitment to America. Republicans’ this is your “put up or shut up” moment.

William L. Kovacs, author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change, and former senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The post Republicans Win the House. It’s Time to Honor their Commitment to America appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Musk as well made good on a promise to bring about more transparency to Twitter. He gave journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss access to all of the internal communications regarding the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The day before the bombshell report by Matt Taibbi, I tweeted a reply to Elon Musk requesting my previous suspended account, as well as a few friends who have been suspended for dubious reasons to have our accounts reinstated. This included my prior account Guy Squiggs, as well as Joshua Smith, the Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party.

Taibbi’s report the following day was as shocking as it was entertaining. Elon Musk has his own spin on Occam’s Razor, the law stating that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Elon’s Razor, on the other hand, states that the most entertaining outcome is the most likely. Elon’s Razor proved accurate, as tweet #8 in Taibbi’s 36 tweet long report especially stood out to me. I, Guy Squiggs, was in that tweet. Of course I was.

In this tweet the world saw my previous account being “requested for review” by the Biden Campaign, and then being “handled.” Musk himself responded to this particular tweet asking, “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?” Then in the next tweet we learned that the same thing had happened to actor James Woods. He appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show vowing to file a lawsuit, and I will be closely paying attention.

Large Twitter accounts such as Scott Presler and Libs of TikTok were sharing screenshots of my old account which has been permanently suspended for about two years now. This disclosure for Taibbi might possibly be providing context for that suspension.

This all began on October 14th 2020, when New York Post published a bombshell exposé revealing emails recovered on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. Both Twitter and Facebook heavily throttled the story and prevented it from being spread, and Twitter took the extraordinary step of locking New York Post from its Twitter account. 

Twitter cited a “hacked materials” policy, but Taibbi revealed that Twitter executives didn’t believe that reason would hold up. The materials published were no longer the property of Hunter Biden, so his consent is no longer needed. They were the property of the repair shop he abandoned the laptop at, whose owner willfully turned over this material.

Following the censorship of New York Post, with the corporate mainstream media claiming the story was Russian disinformation, I set out looking for leaks of this material. Many photos from the laptop were leaked on Parler, where I spent an unfortunate amount of time looking at Hunter Biden’s nudes so you don’t have to. One photo however really alarmed me, which I censored and shared to Twitter. This tweet can be viewed in its original integrity in the archives on wayback, despite the account being suspended.

The photo, like many released on Parler, showed Hunter exposing himself (which was censored prior to being posted on Twitter). Behind Hunter however was a balcony where a girl was sitting. She appeared to be young, but the question was how young? That was the question, and that was the tweet’s entire purpose. This was the tweet that the Biden campaign requested to be removed. It’s also still a question I think is worth an answer.

While I have always wanted my old account back, now I heavily desire its return as it is part of a profound moment in history. That account vindicates everything conservatives believed was happening against them, but only up until now could be proven. I understand that the mass reinstatement of accounts is a work in progress, but I would humbly beg Twitter to reinstate the accounts listed in my pinned tweet. I also will eagerly be paying attention to any steps James Woods takes.

The post HANDLED: Guy Squiggs Reacts to Being Censored on Twitter appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Functionally, definitionally opposed and cross-purposed to one another, they all the same began their dysfunctional, disastrous courtship which matured into a strong and enduring toxic partnership. In theory, they believed they could advance their common goals by making concessions on the margins to each other in exchange for the strength that numbers provide.

Self-deluded, the right convinced itself that there was actually some fundamental natural alignment between the three rather than a relationship born of political expediency. A world of fiscal cons, social cons, and neocons living in harmony rather than chaos, believing fusionism functioned as symmetry is… madness.

Every honest fiscal conservative recognizes the financial cost of unjust war, and every honest social conservative recognizes the immorality of it. Fiscal cons recognize the cost of prohibition, and neocons recognize the types of war social cons would support are not in the national interest. Social conservatives can understand that fiscal conservatism is rooted in the freedom inherent in self-ownership and individualism, rather than adherence to conforming to a higher traditionalist power. Neoconservatives are not naive enough to recognize that the utter incompatibility of thrift and war makes fiscal conservatives, at very least, a future enemy.

The Cold War may have provided more overlap than one would expect, especially given how readily humans define their own beliefs by what they’re opposed to—what Dershowitz might phrase “rights from wrongs”. Communism was rightly seen as a threat to financial freedom, religious freedom, and America itself. Inwardly, Federalism might have been able to smooth out some of the frayed edges and provide an out for the seeming contradictions. But it couldn’t last. The coalition had been dying since the lifting of the Iron Curtain. Determining the cause or time of death might be tricky— and it’s more complicated than just “Trump”—but recognizing it is a corpse shouldn’t require a biologist.

The GOP is set to sweep the midterms, but they cannot thank this coalition for the victory. It is more an accident of timing and opposition. Republicans have long jettisoned any sense of fiscal restraint. Opposing gargantuan Democrat budgets doesn’t count if their alternative is essentially gargantuan budgets from a year or two ago. Their “moral majority” overwhelmingly turned out for a man with the character of Donald Trump. Neocons may still hold the levers of power at the top, but at the grassroots level the average Republican has become more skeptical of war and pro-war propaganda than the average Democrat. The only credit they’ll have for this victory is in managing to not screw up badly enough that they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

So what legs have replaced Reagan’s tripod? There are plenty of words that come to mind such as nativism, nationalism, populism—all of which may play some role. But the only visible connecting tissue I see in today’s Republican party is “owning the libs”. There does not seem to be any important, set, coherent philosophical difference defining the GOP; all that is left is cultural identity and hating the other guys more than they hate one another.

Defining oneself by opposition allows your opposition to set the terms. What today’s GOP needs is an actual soul. What defines them now is a relatively rudderless anger, and a (correct) understanding that the modern left has lost its marbles.

The Gipper’s Stool is dead.

The post All Three Legs of the Gipper’s Stool Are Broken appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

PDMP made into law will have Missouri joining the other 49 states in attempting to reduce drug overdoses and addiction through enforcement. However, it will also have Missouri joining other states around the country in a ridiculous contradiction.

The Contradiction

Missouri is one of many States with a Drug Court program, a voluntary but costly alternative to incarceration available to non-violent drug offenders. In Missouri, completion is rewarded with expungement of the drug offense related to a person’s participation in the program. Essentially, it’s the state’s way of acknowledging not all drug offenders are violent. It also acknowledges that non-violent offenders don’t deserve to be burdened with a criminal record, and kept in a system of incarceration and probation that negatively alters their future in society.

PDMP, on the other hand, is a state-run program specifically targeting non-violent drug offenses. Here we have two conflicting government systems—one criminalizing non-violent drug offenses with a subsequent system asserting non-violent drug offenses shouldn’t be criminal. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing.

The Hypocrisy

So which is it? Is non-violent drug use criminal? Or are only violent actions criminal? The state says both—unless the non-violent prove themselves worthy of not being treated as criminals by jumping through challenging hoops and paying large sums of money to the courts, strung out over a period of one to two years. Effectively, non-violent drug users are offenders because MONEY. And the revenue collected doesn’t even come close to alleviating the tax burden funding these wasteful programs.

If Missouri really wished to make a dent in addiction and overdose cases, it could at least try NOT to contradict itself. Sending mixed messages is the wrong message. In this wildly spun web of hypocrisy, only one message is clear—the War On Drugs is alive and well. PDMP is just a thinly veiled escalation, doomed to fail just as the rest of the Drug War has.

The post Government Fail: Missouri Legislature Contradicts Itself in the War on Drugs appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Rose Corkery on April 22, 2021

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed a photo of her father with former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt while explaining that supporting D.C. “statehood is in my DNA” on Thursday.

“I said this District of Columbia statehood is in my DNA,” Pelosi said while bringing out the framed photo. The House passed a bill in a 216-208 vote on Thursday that would designate D.C. as the country’s 51st state.

WATCH:

D.C. would become the “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” and preserve a separate smaller federal district if the bill is enacted.

At least 10 Senate Republicans would have to side with Senate Democrats in order for the legislation to pass in the Senate. The bill wouldn’t need Senate Republicans’ backing to pass if the filibuster was eliminated.

Democrats require every senator in their party to vote alongside them, including Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

There is strong opposition to the bill from Republicans, who have contended the legislation is unconstitutional. Republicans also argued Democrats are seeking to gain two more Senate seats and another spot in the House for political reasons.

Democrats contend the district’s thousands of residents, who pay taxes, are entitled to representation.

Pelosi explained the photo depicted her father conducting his first hearing as the District of Columbia Appropriation Subcommittee’s chair.

“As chair of that committee, he was known as the unofficial mayor of Washington because sadly the Congress had so much say over what happened in the District of Columbia. He did not support that, he was all for home rule and what would come after that,” Pelosi said.

“We’re so proud of it and again, proud to help, what help meant, like letting the District of Columbia decide for itself. So as everybody talks about how long they’ve been working on it, DNA. District of Columbia. Statehood,” Pelosi said.

The post DC ‘Statehood Is In My DNA,’ Pelosi Says As She Shows Photo Of Her Father With Eleanor Roosevelt appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Thomas Catenacci on March 18, 2021

Senate Banking Committee Republicans led by Ranking Member Pat Toomey urged Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell not to pursue environmental policies in a letter Thursday.

Toomey and the other Republican committee members warned that the Federal Reserve potentially using regulatory authority to push an environmental agenda would be beyond its scope of authority, according to the letter sent Thursday. The senators noted several recent actions taken by the Federal Reserve that suggest the U.S. central bank could pursue climate policies.

“We question both the purpose and efficacy of climate-related banking regulation and scenario analysis, especially because the Federal Reserve lacks jurisdiction over and expertise in environmental matters,” the Republican senators wrote.

The Banking Committee Republicans referenced the Federal Reserve’s decision to include climate change in its recent financial stability report for the first time ever and its decision to join the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System in December. The Federal Reserve also recently createdthe “Supervision Climate Committee.”

Federal Reserve Gov. Lael Brainard said last month that the central bank may begin subjecting banks to climate analysis, the letter said.

“This effort is not grounded in science or economics, but is instead a self-fulfilling prophesy: claim there are financial risks with energy exploration and other disfavored investments then use the levers of government—via the unelected bureaucracy—to ban or limit those activities,” the senators continued.

The senators added that policy-making based on future climate projections is dangerous and could hurt the economy.

Republicans’ letter preceded a Banking Committee hearing on protecting the financial system from climate change Thursday. The hearing is the first-ever hosted by the committee on the effects of climate change on the economy.

Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who chairs the committee, said during his opening remarks that climate policies pursued by financial regulators could help, not hurt, the economy. However, Toomey said financial regulators taking up such policies could be cover for attacking “disfavored” businesses.

“The real objective here is to punish politically disfavored industries,” Toomey said during his opening remarks at the hearing.

“By straying beyond their mandates into the climate arena, financial regulators will pressure banks not to serve politically disfavored industries such as fossil fuel companies,” Toomey said. “Who’s next? Gun manufacturers? Conservative media? Religiously-minded businesses like Hobby Lobby?”

The post ‘Not Grounded In Science’: GOP Senators Warn Federal Reserve Against Promoting Environmental Policies appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

While both articles provide interesting perspectives, both avoid the central question—does the LP want a future as a major political party?

While the duopoly controls politics, there are bright spots for the LP

This question is asked against the stark reality that the duopoly controls 99.92% of all elected offices in the U.S., spent almost $3 billion dollars vs $2.9 million by the LP candidate in the 2020 presidential race, and obtained over 98% of the national vote. Even more humiliating for the LP is that out of 328 million citizens, the duopoly elected “sleepy” Joe Biden, a gaffe-prone plagiarist who has difficulty with sentence structure and avoids answering questions on issues.

There are several bright spots for the Libertarian Party. It is the only minor party on the ballot of all 50 states, an impressive achievement. Moreover, a recent Gallup poll finds 62 % of Americans stated a third party was needed, the highest level ever.

What is the goal of the LP?

The difficulty in commenting on the future of the LP is, while its slogan is “The Party of Principle,” there is no discussion of how these principles translate into practical policies that improve life in the United States. A statement of principles is merely a statement of surface-level belief. Fighting to transform principles into reality is costly. It involves a tremendous amount of hard work, action, communications with people outside of the party circle, coalition building, education, recruitment, and an openness to others who might support many of the LP principles, but not all. In short, the LP must recognize political success is achieved by addition, not by principles.

In his book on minor political parties, Professor Devine writes that for America’s third-largest political party, “there is growing disconnect between the party’s radical platform and the more mainstream, ‘fiscally conservative and socially liberal’ policy preferences of its rank-and-file supporters.”

To be successful, the Libertarian Party must decide if it wants to be a political party that leads the nation or be a social club discussing political issues. With freedom under attack and censorship viewed as “truth-telling,” it is the perfect time for the LP to decide its fate. If the party decides it wants to win elections, it needs to continue its very effective ballot access litigation and its minimal efforts at candidate recruitment and education. But it must go well beyond the minimum.

A few modest suggestions for the LP

• Explain how LP principles can be implemented to help the American people. This is essential since most Americans have little knowledge of the LP. 44% of Americans don’t even “know the correct definition of the party,” let alone its platform. Without knowing what it stands for, it is hard to vote for it. The party’s primary issues are individual freedom, free markets, freedom in personal relationships (e.g., drug legalization), and a foreign policy used for defense rather than as the policeman of the world. They have an opportunity to explain to a public locked in homes, under massive government surveillance, suffering assaults on privacy, and paying for massive corporate bailouts and trillions spent on wars and nation-building, how their policies will make for a better U.S.. Explaining their positions to the public will win significant additional support.
• Develop coalitions with groups on specific issues of agreement. An excellent example is the decriminalization of drugs and prison reform. While there are many social organizations involved in this issue, there are also many minority organizations that have an interest in it. Reach out to the minority community—especially its business community—that has a strong history of entrepreneurship and is very understanding of the stigma of incarceration. Also, reach out to anti-war groups; they need allies as much as the LP does.
• Consider the joint establishment of a litigation center with other minor parties to keep costs reasonable. Since all minor parties have similar concerns with the duopoly harassment on ballot access, having a cadre of experienced lawyers able to take on the cases nationwide is essential. Research how the many non-profit litigation centers have dramatically influenced the courts and national policy at a very reasonable cost.
• Expand the legal theories beyond obtaining ballot access. Use the Civil Rights and Anti-trust laws to put an end to the constant harassment of litigation and election law changes to deny ballot access to minor parties. Put the duopoly at financial risk by seeking damages for all the harm caused by a century-long conspiracy to deny civil rights and restrain trade.
• Start this second to get on the debate stage for the presidential debates. Yes, the LP and Level the Playing Field, in June 2020, lost another case seeking to include minor parties in the debates. It is essential to grasp that judicial appointees are not dispensing justice; they were appointed to do the duopoly’s work. There are two options that have strong possibilities to put the LP message on stage.
  • Pass a law. Develop and have introduced legislation that has reasonable and achievable standards for participation by minor parties in the debates. Involve all minor parties in recruiting citizen lobbyists in every congressional district in the nation. Have them lobby their members of Congress and Senators in their home offices. Make the campaign local and public with visits and press releases. Make the campaign national by starting a social media campaign to raise awareness and support.
  • Petition the IRS to deny the non-profit status of the Commission on Presidential Debates (“CPD”). The CPD is merely a front organization for the two political parties. It uses tax-exempt status to raise money to host a debate that only provides exposure to the duopoly. In essence, corporations receive a tax deduction for making a political contribution. The IRS can investigate and change its status if it finds its goal is political, not educational. If big business loses the tax-deductibility of its “lobbying” contributions, the contributions evaporate. If the petition is denied, sue the IRS.
• Seriously think about this “wild and crazy option”. There is a large section of the electorate that would like to vote against candidates like Trump and Biden, but it needs someone to vote for. If the LP wants a sizable part of those votes, it must nominate a candidate that has some name recognition, an ability to speak to the voters, a concise message that explains how libertarian policies would help Americans and can raise money. A few names come to mind: Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Thomas Massie, Jim Justice, or Justin Amash. Each of these candidates are proven vote-getters and can raise money. Each of them has the ability to secure over 15% of the vote. If that happens,the LP will be recognized as a major party and will have a massive impact on the 2024 election and future elections.

The Libertarian Party is at a fork in the road. Its current path leads to irrelevancy under duopoly domination.  Taking the less traveled path has the chance to break the duopoly and start implementing libertarian principles. Shock the political system! It deserves it!

The post Does the Libertarian Party Have a Future? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

But we can’t deny it any longer. Irrefutable evidence stares us in the face when we turn on the news and log onto social media. It’s time we libertarians accept the truth as everyone else already has. Libertarians are the most powerful force for political and societal change this continent has ever seen!The political opposition expose their belief in this all the time. Remember when Ronald Reagan claimed the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism? Republicans, in response, wasted no time dragging conservatism away from limited government and free market principles. That was just too radical an idea for them, and we needed to be marginalized for the GOP to retain their control. You wouldn’t react like that to an irrelevant group that barely registers as a minor nuisance, would you?

When libertarians got involved in the Tea Party movement, the Obama administration pressured the IRS to harass affiliated groups and organizations. FreedomWorks, which had libertarians working within, was a target. Democrats wouldn’t stand for any societal change they didn’t engineer, and moved quickly to suppress libertarian influence before it expanded. Likewise, GOP cronies couldn’t sit idly by and used their resources and influence to sabotage the movement.

But that didn’t stop us! Instead, we’ve since moved the needle even further to the point that Tucker Carlson admitted libertarians (unbeknownst to us) practically own and operate Washington, DC. Most recently, we’ve even earned vitriol from a former CIA spook who claims “even libertarians” are part of an “unholy alliance!”

Last but not least, the mother of all proofs which demonstrate the raw power we command—libertarians are solely responsible for the outcome of every major election! For decades, our voter base (arguably the smallest demographic in the nation) has held the keys to the Oval Office, where just a simple nod or frown from us has the power to vault a major candidate to victory or devastate a campaign and lay it to waste.

So I’ve decided to drop denial like a bad habit, and accept our rightful place as rulers of the political galaxy. Fear us. Hate us. Or simply bow before us. Just know that we now know what you have already accepted— Libertarians run this show!

The post Libertarians: Movers, Shakers and Kingmakers in American Politics appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Here’s How The GOP’s Stimulus Package Compares To Biden’s appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Rose Corkery on January 21, 2021

Will Wilkinson, vice president for research at the Niskanen Center and a New York Times contributing opinion writer said Thursday that President Joe Biden would lynch former Vice President Mike Pence if he desires unity.

“‘Aha! Biden proposes policies I dislike. HIS CALL FOR UNITY IS A LIE!!!’ is all the forlorn conservative mind can seem to muster. Sad,” Wilkinson tweeted, according to a screenshot.

“If Biden really wanted unity, he’d lynch Mike Pence,” Wilkinson tweeted, according to the screenshot.

The tweet, posted at 12:33 a.m. Thursday, has since been deleted.

“The Pence tweet was a tart way to drive home the exasperating irony and bad faith of right-wing pundits who have accused Biden of insincerity in his heartfelt calls for unification,” Wilkinson told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“[T]heir own divisive rhetoric and willingness to spread disinformation about the election contributed to hundreds of Republicans storming the Capitol, erecting a noose, and calling for Mike Pence to be hanged.”

Wilkinson said that his agreement with Biden “that it is crucial for Americans to come together” is, in part, why he deleted the tweet.

Twitter told the DCNF it is looking into the tweet.

President Joe Biden promised in his inauguration speech on Wednesday to bring the American people together during a time of division and conflict.

“For those who did not support us, let me say this: Hear me out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart,” Biden said.

Biden said disagreement is American and democratic and said “the right to dissent peaceably… is perhaps this nation’s greatest strength” in his inauguration speech.

“Hear me clearly: disagreement must not lead to disunion. And I pledge this to you: I will be a president for all Americans, and I promise you I will fight as hard for those who didn’t support me as those who did,” Biden said.

Twitter purged conservative accounts on a large scale after the Capitol riot in early January and after temporarily suspending former President Donald Trump’s account. The company tweeted on Jan. 6 that three of Trump’s tweets broke their “Civic Integrity’ policy.

The social media company announced it banned Trump’s account after the initial suspension.

The company also banned Gen. Mike Flynn, Sydney Powell and other accounts of Trump supporters for furthering the QAnon conspiracy theory, NBC News reported on Jan. 8.

The Niskanen Center and The New York Times didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.\

Editor’s Note: This piece has been updated with Wilkinson’s statement.

The post NY Times Contributing Writer Calls For Lynching Mike Pence appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.