We’ve seen the lawfare against Trump meant to destroy both his candidacy and himself. We’ve seen the party claiming “Democracy is on the ballot” attempt to wipe Donald Trump’s name off that same ballot. We’ve watched as he was convicted of 36 felonies for doing exactly what Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid a mere $8,000 fine for. We watched as Matthew Colangelo resigned from the Biden DOJ so he could prosecute Donald Trump in New York, while the Biden Administration claimed with a straight face that they were not involved in any way.

We have watched two assassination attempts, one where bullets flew and another where they were waiting. The second attempt was prompted by rhetoric from the Democrats that Trump was a fascist and a danger to Democracy. Rhetoric that the Democrats have only ratcheted up since that attempt.

We have watched as the Democrats have installed a different Presidential Nominee without a primary for voters to select their candidate. While this is pretty uncharted territory, I do not believe history will look back favorably on this, and future precedent will likely be written by the Supreme Court in opposition to it.

This is an election unlike any other, and it is indeed consequential.

Trump has courted Libertarians specifically by coming to their convention where he promised to free Ross Ulbricht, protect Bitcoin and place a Libertarian in his cabinet. These are definitely some wins. However there are even bigger wins that Trump did not announce at the Libertarian convention.

One common criticism that Libertarians have of Republicans is that they never actually cut spending or eliminate wasteful departments. This has been true up until now. Trump is tapping Elon Musk to launch a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to address this very thing. Who better than Elon Musk to drastically reduce Federal agencies like he did to the headcount at Twitter? OK OK fine, yes Ron Paul, you got me there.

It’s a good thing Elon Musk agrees with you.

Trump has assembled the likes of Vivek Ramaswamy, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, Elon Musk, and yes, Ron Paul now too. It is a team of great people all tapped for specific strengths to be used in Trump’s second cabinet which is shaping up a whole lot better than his first one.

However the most consequential thing may come after the next 4 years are over. If Trump wins this election, then all the establishment Republicans and neocon warmongers who have aligned themselves with the Democrats will be stuck there. They will have no credibility after such a loss. If Trump loses however, they will have credibility to ooze their way back in.

A Trump win creates a vacuum in 4 years when Trump’s 2nd term is over. It’s a vacuum that beaten neocons would not be able to recapture and fill. The Ron Paul conservatives, the Vivek Ramaswamys and JD Vances and those who love liberty should position themselves to fill that vacuum.

This is a consequential election, and getting Trump over the finish line sets us up for even bigger wins in the long term. These are wins we can actually pat ourselves on the back for and take credit for. We’re responsible for freeing Ross. We’re responsible for Republicans cutting spending. Let’s take those wins and own them.

The post The Libertarian Moment Has Arrived—And It’s Riding on Trump’s 2024 Win appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

 The federal government is constantly out of money and always needs more. It resembles the cartoon character “Wimpy,” a friend of Popeye. Wimpy is a mooch and scam artist. He was always out of cash, but his voracious appetite for hamburgers forced him to ask all – “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” The federal government constantly asks taxpayers, “I’ll gladly properly manage your money on Tuesday for more taxpayer money today.” The proper management of taxpayer monies never happens; only more promises from our politicians to reform their government mismanagement.

The federal government is very blase about its $35 trillion national debt, and Congress uses its annual budget games to hide unnecessary expenditures in the proverbial weeds. The federal government’s budget is a camouflage to hide its financial condition – it is de facto bankrupt. Its adversaries and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) understand the federal government’s financial stress more than American politicians. The BRICS  are attempting to create a competing reserve currency and eventually replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. If this ever happens, the U.S. will rapidly sink into second-class status.

Since 2000, the dollar has declined in use and acceptance as the world’s reserve currency from 71% to 60%. The more the federal government uses the dollar to punish foreign adversaries for policies the U.S. dislikes, the more nations seek to displace the dollar to protect their own currencies.

It’s now time for American citizens to focus on this financial disaster facing this nation before it drifts into a financial crisis our government cannot easily fix. The BRICS know the U.S. lives on borrowed time, sustained only by its printing press and a large supply of paper and ink.

A book exposing the perils of the federal government’s fiscal health is written annually but rarely read. If the federal government and Congress won’t read it, it is time for citizens to read it and start taking control of their country.

The book  is titled “The Financial Report of the United States Government” or the “Financial Report.” While federal government agencies prepare their chapters, the significant aspect of the report is that the composite report is audited by the General Accounting Office (“GAO”), an independent arm of Congress. It is not a regurgitation of the budget, focusing on deficits, surpluses, and debt. The Financial Report focuses on the government’s net operating costs, i.e., the differences between real revenues and real costs.

How broke is the federal government? In its latest report (2022), the gross cost of the federal government was $ 7.4 trillion. While it collected $4.9 trillion in taxes, the actual net cost of government is $9.1 trillion since it must recognize an additional future expense of $2.2 trillion, which it incurred by underestimating the cost of employee and veterans’ benefits. Fortunately for the federal government, since it will not have to pay the employee and veterans benefits immediately, accounting standards allow it to show a deficit of only $1.37 trillion for 2022.

What is the value of all the federal government assets? On the asset side of the ledger, the federal government has only $4.962 trillion in assets. This amount consists of $878 billion in cash, inventory valued at $407 billion, and $1.2 trillion in property, plant, and equipment. Its largest asset is “Loan Receivable, Net,” valued at $1.434 trillion. Of that amount, $1.3 trillion is the Federal Student Loan program that President Biden wants to forgive, an act that would immediately reduce federal assets to $3.62 trillion.

What is the bottom line? After GAO makes all adjustments, total federal assets are $5 trillion, and total liabilities are $40 trillion. The federal government is in the hole for $35 trillion. Moreover, the GAO report does not consider, for audit purposes, any unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, which are estimated at $76 trillion.

If most families live paycheck to paycheck, the federal government lives from every withholding tax payment to the next. If the average American family has difficulty paying the bills, they should be terrified that for every U.S. citizen, including infants, their share of the national debt is $100,000. For families, their share is over $250,000. At some point, Mr. and Mrs. America and the kids must realize the government is penniless. It is borrowing from our children so it can gorge itself today. The federal government, like Wimpy, is a “deadbeat,” a person or entity “that is not willing to pay debts or accept responsibility.”

Every time the federal government takes money out of a paycheck for its wastefulness, it tells the taxpayer, “I’ll gladly pay you on Tuesday for your hard-earned money today.”

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. The book received 5 stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book, Reform the Kakistocracy, received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

William L. Kovacs author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. Received 5-Stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post How Broke Is the Federal Government? It’s Penniless! appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Introducing the 4Liberty Network: Liberty-Minded Media for All

Streaming live from the Missouri Times building’s newly revamped studio, the Wake Up America Show has hit the #1 spot in political talk streams on Elon Musk’s X platform multiple times recently. Now, with the debut of 4LibertyNetwork.com, Petersen is aiming even higher by bringing new voices to the forefront and delivering more of the liberty-centered content that audiences crave.

“After two successful years of growing the Wake Up America Show and 4LibertyShop.com, I’m excited to launch the 4Liberty Network,” says Petersen. “We’ve built a strong, healthy community, and now it’s time to bring new talents into the spotlight while delivering more of the liberty-centered content people are craving.”

Meet the Lineup: Fresh Faces, Fresh Voices

The 4Liberty Network will feature a dynamic lineup of shows, all with their own unique style and focus. Here’s what you can expect:

• Culturama: Airing live on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 7-9 pm Central, Culturama is hosted by Daniella Pentsak—a charismatic, Marilyn Monroe-inspired personality with a master’s degree. This 1950s-themed retro show blends culture and politics with a libertarian twist, offering both style and substance. Get your dose of thought-provoking discussions at rumble.com/culturama.
• Liberty Tonight: Thursdays from 9-11 pm Central, this Tonight Show-style program brings together hosts Brian Peotter and Jordan Marinovich (aka King Libertarian). Mixing fake celebrity interviews, news, and satire, Liberty Tonight is the fun and innovative commentary you didn’t know you needed. Expect a blend of humor and hard-hitting discussions at rumble.com/libertytonight.
• The Wake Up America Show with Austin Petersen: Kicking off every weekday from 7-9 am Central, Petersen’s Wake Up America Show offers an upbeat, 1980s retro vibe with “silly shirts and serious interviews.” Always optimistic and passionate about America’s future, Petersen delivers zany yet brainy news talk to start your day right.

Powered by Liberty, Fueled by Community

The success of the 4Liberty Network is directly tied to the incredible support of its audience and the success of its e-commerce store, 4LibertyShop.com. The shop has a loyal following, bringing in thousands of customers who proudly sport patriotic merch and enjoy Founding Flavors coffee. Even Argentina’s President, Javier Milei, has recognized the store’s offerings!

“Our community doesn’t just support us with views—they’re buying the products that keep this vision alive and profitable,” says Petersen.

The Future of Free Speech, Now on Rumble & Locals

Partnering with Rumble and Locals, the 4Liberty Network is committed to free speech and uncensored content. Petersen emphasizes that, “We’re not just creating a media outlet; we’re building a long-term platform where our ideas can thrive.” With Rumble’s state-of-the-art studio software and the support of the crowd-funded Locals website, the 4Liberty Network will serve as a home base for its shows while extending their reach across multiple platforms.

Stay Tuned: The Liberty Revolution Is Just Getting Started

The Wake Up America Show launched in 2022 and has since transformed into a full-fledged media network, thanks to Petersen’s vision and passion. Now, with the 4Liberty Network in full swing, the goal is to showcase fresh talent, spark conversations, and grow a community where liberty thrives.

To stay updated on all things 4Liberty Network and to catch upcoming shows, visit 4LibertyNetwork.com and follow Austin Petersen on X at @AP4Liberty.

For any media inquiries, you can reach out to Austin Petersen directly at 573-319-1586 or email at austin@stonegaitllc.com.

Get ready to join the Liberty movement—one show at a time!

The post Exciting New Expansion for 4Liberty Network – Austin Petersen’s Liberty Media Powerhouse Is Here! appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Identifying Blockages and Clogs

• Immediate Detection: Camera inspections swiftly identify the location and nature of blockages caused by tree roots, household waste, or other obstructions.

• Accurate Problem Solving: With precise visual evidence, plumbers can recommend the most effective solutions to clear blockages without unnecessary and costly exploratory measures.

Detecting Pipe Damage and Leaks

• Visual Confirmation: Cameras can detect cracks, fractures, and leaks inside the pipes that might not be visible from the outside.

• Early Repairs: Early detection allows for immediate repairs, preventing minor issues from escalating into major disruptions.

Assessing Pipeline Condition and Age

• Long-Term Planning: Understanding the current condition and material of your sewer lines helps in preparing for future maintenance or full replacements.

• Life Expectancy Estimates: This information is crucial, especially when considering property renovations or sales, to estimate remaining pipeline lifespan.

Preventing Costly Repairs and Emergencies

• Proactive Measures: Regular inspections can prevent severe problems such as sewage backups and extensive water damage.

• Cost Savings: By addressing issues early, homeowners and businesses can avoid the higher costs associated with emergency repairs and significant property damage.

Confirming the Success of Repairs and Cleanings

• Quality Assurance: Post-repair inspections ensure that repairs or cleanings have been successful, with no remaining issues.

• Customer Satisfaction: This step provides homeowners with peace of mind, knowing their sewer system is in excellent condition.

Planning for Future Maintenance

• Scheduled Interventions: Based on the inspection findings, plumbers can set up a tailored maintenance schedule to keep the sewer system in optimal condition.

• Long-Term Benefits: Regularly scheduled maintenance based on precise camera inspection data can significantly extend the life of sewer systems and reduce overall maintenance costs.

Camera inspections are a cornerstone of modern plumbing practices, providing a non-invasive, accurate, and cost-effective method to assess and manage the health of sewer lines. For residents and businesses in San Jose, United Plumbing & Water Heaters offers this sophisticated diagnostic tool to enhance the maintenance and repair of your plumbing infrastructure. With the ability to precisely identify and prevent potential problems before they become severe, camera inspections are an essential service for any proactive property maintenance plan.

Embrace the advantages of advanced plumbing technology with United Plumbing & Water Heaters. Contact them today to schedule a camera inspection for your property and ensure your sewer systems are maintained with the highest level of expertise and care.

The post Understanding Camera Inspections: Why They Are Crucial for Your Sewer Line appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

It’s crucial to remember, however, that a prior liberal/Progressive SCOTUS created the regulatory powers of the Administrative State. These court-created powers lasted for many decades and greatly diminished Congress’s powers to control the Administrative State.

To prevent a return to an all-powerful, court-sanctioned Administrative State, it is imperative that Congress seizes this period of anticipated regulatory sanity to codify and expand the court’s decisions. The role of congressional action in preserving this victory cannot be overstated. After being absent from the regulatory reform debate for decades, Congress must now actively protect the benefits of these recent decisions.

The three SCOTUS decisions are excellent examples of how, in the absence of Congress, the federal judiciary can allow regulators to take on the trappings of a “Star Chamber” that can only be dismantled by a future court.

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. The Secretary of Commerce, the court reversed the forty years of deference courts gave to federal agencies under Chevron vs. NRDC. Chevron’s legal and economic impact is gargantuan. At the time of the Chevron decision in 1984, the federal bureaucracy had issued approximately 65,000 regulations since the beginning of the Administrative State. After Chevron, the tentacles of the Administrative State expanded to control almost every aspect of society, including the products made, the information provided, and the energy it used. By 2023, the bureaucracy had issued 215,500 regulations costing the economy approximately $2 trillion to implement annually.

The courts dutifully applied Chevron’s deference. Seventy future SCOTUS  decisions relied upon it, and it was cited in 17,000 lower court decisions. By removing agency deference, SCOTUS returned agency rulemaking power to Congress’s original intent, formulated in its Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)—that judges, not bureaucrats, make independent interpretations of the law.

In the second case, SEC vs. Jarkesy, the court struck down the power of federal agencies to act as regulators, judges, and executioners, which could impose substantial civil penalties without providing the defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

While Jarkesy sought judicial review in a federal court, the SEC forced him to adjudicate the matter in-house. The agency’s administrative law judge levied a $300,000 fine on Jarkesy and ordered the disgorgement of $685,000 in illicit profits for violations of the anti-fraud provisions in federal securities law. Jarkesy petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for judicial review, arguing that he had the right to a jury trial since the SEC sought penalties. The federal appellate court agreed with Jarkesy.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s finding. It is reasoned that when an agency seeks to impose civil penalties, the action is in the nature of punishment. Since punishment at common law was imposed by courts holding jury trials, Jarkesy was entitled to a jury trial.

The ruling in Jarkesy is significant because federal agencies hire several thousand ALJs to hear evidence and make judicial decisions. These administrative proceedings are very costly to defendants but are more comfortable for agencies since the outcome is determined by their paid-for, in-house “judges.”

Loper and Jarkesy build upon  WVA v. EPA, the case in which SCOTUS formulated its Major Questions Doctrine requiring an agency to establish statutory authority when transforming long-standing policy into a dramatically new one. EPA historically applied section 111 of the Clean Air Act only to specific energy sources at particular locations. Suddenly, the EPA “discovered new authority” and authorized itself to determine what types of electrical power could be generated and distributed to the nation. SCOTUS found that EPA lacked the statutory authority to transform its facility-by-facility approach to clean air regulation into the power to regulate the entire electricity grid. The critical aspect of its ruling is that when federal agencies suddenly change long-established policies, the agency must prove Congress granted them such authority.

In the three cases, SCOTUS reversed long-established positions that agencies could fill in the legislative blanks in the law, force citizens into trials controlled by agency-paid judges, and unilaterally extend regulatory powers to “newly discovered activities.”

The dramatic change in the court’s judicial philosophy exhibited a newfound respect for Congress as it searched for its congressional intent or any constitutional support for agency activity

For those familiar with our Constitution and congressionally written laws, it’s clear that vagueness is omnipresent in most texts. This understanding should raise concerns about the potential for a future SCOTUS with a liberal/Progressive majority to reverse the current limits. Such a reversal could allow agencies to once again operate as unsupervised lawmakers, thereby potentially making them supreme in the lawmaking process. This potential imbalance underscores the need to preserve the recent SCOTUS decisions.

While conservative Republicans in Congress for decades voiced concerns over the growth of the regulatory state, they could not secure the votes to restrain the system created by the liberal/Progressive SCOTUS.

Only the 115^th Congress seriously attempted to reform the APA and, by implication, the Administrative State through the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act (“RAA”). The RAA sought to reform the rulemaking process to ensure final rules were based on sound facts and law, inadequate science could be challenged, major rules were subject to on-the-record hearings with cross-examination, and courts, not regulators, interpreted the law.

The House passed the RAA several times. A Republican Senate even voted it out of committee; however, Senate leadership under Mitch McConnell, a patron of the Administrative State, refused to bring the legislation to the floor. This effort was Congress’ first and last serious attempt to reform the Administrative State since its creation in 1946.

In the final analysis, agencies will fight to the last rulemaking proceeding to expand their regulatory powers. The Biden administration recently proved the truth of the assertion by forgiving additional student loan debt after a conservative SCOTUS declared such actions beyond the powers granted to the Executive by Congress. While the current SCOTUS has significantly limited the power of agencies to make new laws without congressional authority, a future liberal/Progressive court could reverse these limits. It is up to Congress to place statutory limitations on an agency’s power to make laws without authority from Congress. Such action is necessary if Congress is to reclaim and retain its constitutional role as the nation’s sole legislative authority.

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. Received 5 stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book, Reform the Kakistocracy, received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post SCOTUS Ignites a Regulatory Reform Revolution appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“Why couldn’t profound ideas be presented in a fun and enjoyable way?” This very question inspired Ken Schoolland to write “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible”. With translations in 57 languages and worldwide readership, this captivating book narrates the journey of a young man shipwrecked on a mysterious island, where he embarks on a series of adventures and learns invaluable life lessons.

In recent years, social media has been flooded with reports of Gen Z shifting towards socialism and rebelling against the rich and capitalism. While they believe in some form of liberty, their means of achieving it are far from free-market ideas. Numerous pro-liberty organisations provide great educational programs but reach a limited impact.

Several thinkers have conveyed impactful messages through stories: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand conceptualized her Objectivist philosophy, and 1984 and Animal Farm by George Orwell transmitted the atrocities of socialism. So the question arises: how can we convey free-market ideas in an engaging way?

Recognizing the immense power of storytelling, Liberty International has embarked on a mission to transform this beloved book into an animated series where the philosophy of individual liberty and free-market ideas emerge organically from the interactions in the story.

Whether you are a parent, educator, or liberty enthusiast, this series is set to become a powerful tool for introducing young audiences to vital ideas and principles. “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible” addresses various crucial issues. It busts myths regarding labor-saving innovations, simplifies economic concepts like “the tragedy of the commons,” and highights government intervention through taxation, trade restrictions, and absurd laws.

To bring the book’s characters to life, Liberty International enlisted some of the most influential libertarian voices, including Walter Block, Tom Woods, Michael Malice, Larry Sharpe, Johan Norberg, Magatte Wade, Jennifer Grossman, Robert Anthony Peters, Mohit Satyanand, Kenli Schoolland, and Jo Ann Skousen.

Austin Petersen, who voiced the main character, already had the opportunity to interview the author on his show “Wake Up America”:

Excitement is building as Season 1 of The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible Animation Series is set to launch on September 5th on Free to Choose Network’s Youtube Channel.

In the meantime, check out the trailer here:

And if you want to take a look at behind the scenes, watch how an episode is created here: https://youtu.be/ddAseOGE4gc

Join Liberty International on this adventure and discover how profound ideas can indeed be fun and enjoyable for all ages!

Liberty International Social Media:

Website: https://liberty-intl.org/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndividualLibertyInternational

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/libertyinternational_/

X: https://twitter.com/Liberty_ISIL

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/LibertyInternationalorg

Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@libertyinternational_

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/liberty-international

The post New Cartoon Series! “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

 Colorado’s bogus legal theory failed, so New York invents a new crime.

Initially, Colorado and Maine attempted to deny Trump ballot access by asserting that he was an ineligible presidential candidate since he had violated the insurrectionist clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down their claims, empathically holding state power does not extend to federal officials and candidates “Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not a portion, of the people.’”

Subsequently, New York tried a different approach: indictment. It twisted its legal system to give voters nationwide the appearance of providing a fair trial while it schemed to deprive Trump of his constitutional rights. New York’s goal was to tarnish Trump’s reputation, to tilt the election to the blue-state candidate.

It has been less than four months since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down Colorado’s attempt to remove President Trump from the ballot. During that time, New York invented a new crime to bring against Trump. It was a combination of a misdemeanor business records violation for which the statute of limitation had run and an alleged crime of miscategorizing an expense for a non-disclosure agreement as a legal expense. This unprecedented move was clearly aimed at undermining his candidacy and influencing the election outcome.

New York then staged a trial that transformed a misdemeanor into a felony and convicted Trump of the invented crime. The New York trial court record is replete with examples of how the state, acting through a biased and conflict-ridden judge and a prosecutor campaigning to “Get Trump,” flagrantly violated the former President’s constitutional right to due process to keep him from campaigning in the federal election for President of the U.S.

At trial, New York failed to inform Trump of the alleged crime, denied him the right to put on expert witnesses on election law, and failed to require the jury to unanimously find him guilty of a specific crime as mandated by the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment. New York’s injustice is further compounded by the judge’s “Gag Order” that prevents the former President from freely speaking about the case during the presidential campaign. The Gag Order was continued even after the jury was dismissed, clearly an effort to restrict Trump’s campaign.

The 2024 election is on November 5^th.

With the 2024 election just around the corner, the urgency of the situation cannot be overstated. New York’s threat to our federal election can only be resolved by one or more red states petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction over issues involving conflicts between states. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not immediately address New York’s election interference, it could permanently disrupt a “uniquely important national interest” by allowing voters in different states to believe Trump is a criminal and should not hold office.

Since the votes cast in each state are affected by the votes cast in all states, “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.”

This disruption could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result, leading to a chaotic and uncertain future. As the Supreme Court noted in the Colorado case,  “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we [United States] endure such chaos.” The potential consequences of inaction are too grave to ignore.

The red States have a direct path to the U.S. Supreme Court to block New York’s election interference.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution reserves a special place in the nation’s operation for states to protect the Republic from the unconstitutional election interference of states seeking to subvert the integrity of national elections. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, plays the essential role in upholding this principle. The relevant part of Article III, sec 2, clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

This right is so significant to the functioning of the Union that Congress codified and expanded it at 28 U.S.C. sec. 1251(a) to ensure this protection is straightforward and can be immediately exercised by states.

28 U.S.C. 1251(a) reads:

• The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states. [emphasis added]

Moreover, New York’s election interference violates the rights of the voters of all states to have a fair election by denying a presidential candidate the Privileges and Immunities protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court noted:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As the guardians of national elections, the red states have a crucial role to play. They can directly challenge the state of New York’s unconstitutional conduct in the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby upholding our Republic’s integrity and all citizens’ rights.

The Court’s process for handling cases under original review.

While section 1251(a) states that the ‘Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction, the Court views such power as discretionary. Therefore, the red states must file a ‘motion for leave to file a bill of complaint,’ a formal request for permission to present a legal case. The justices will then decide whether to accept or reject the complaint based on the merits of the case and the potential impact on the nation’s electoral process.

Historically, these state vs. state cases involved water rights, boundary disputes, and commercial fishing. The Court has rejected cases involving goods made by convicts, one state prohibiting state employee travel to another state, and inheritance taxes imposed on residents of other states. The last major state vs. state case was Florida vs. Georgia (2021): the Court rejected Florida’s claim that Georgia consumed more than its fair share of water since Florida did not prove by clear and convincing evidence a severe injury caused by Georgia.

Fortunately, an extensive trial court record for the red states makes the case ready for Supreme Court review.

By having original jurisdiction, many of these state vs. state cases arrive at the Supreme Court without the benefit of a lower court decision setting forth the facts and law relied upon by the parties. As a result, the Supreme Court must appoint a Special Master who gathers evidence, takes sworn testimony, and rules on the evidence. This process can take years for the Special Master to complete his report. The Special Master submits a report to the Supreme Court in a manner similar to an appellate court decision. The Court decides to accept or reject the Master’s report.

In the case of the Red States vs. New York, there is no need for a Special Master since a comprehensive trial record is available to the Court. Moreover, the questions before the Court are all matters of law, not fact, since all the facts are contained in the trial court record. From that record, the Supreme Court can determine if the state of New York unconstitutionally used its legal system in a manner that interfered with the elections in other states.

While the Supreme Court has adjudicated presidential election controversies, e.g., Bush v. Gore, it involved private parties. However, the Court has never ruled on a controversy in which a group of states alleged another state interfered with a national election. Red States vs. New York is an opportunity for the Court to set limits on election interference by states since these types of state actions are capable of repetition.

Post Script

While state vs. state election interference claims rest within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, New York and the actions of other blue states, e.g., Colorado and Maine, to keep Trump off the ballot may also violate numerous federal civil rights statutes, giving former President Trump standing to sue the individuals in those states, acting under color of law, who conspired to keep him off the ballot and/or interfere with the election. These statutes are 42 U.S.C. 1983 (deprivation of civil rights, privileges, and immunities), 42 U.S.C. 1985 (conspiracy to prevent Trump from holding office, obstructing justice, and depriving him of his privileges and immunities), and 42 U.S.C. 1986 (allows Trump to sue those who had the power to prevent violations of his civil rights but were negligent in not preventing them, i.e., the Governor of New York. The Civil Rights statutes may also apply to individuals such as the fifty-one intelligence officials who knew the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic but claimed it to be Russian disinformation to smear Trump and elect Biden. Also, under 42 U.S.C. 1986, the FBI agents may be sued for their negligence in failing to stop the false statements by the fifty-one intelligence officials that interfered with the 2020 election.

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. Received 5 Stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Red States Can Sue NY for Election Interference in SCOTUS appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The specific claim that “Tariffs were raised” is False. This likely comes from confusion between the varying definitions of a Tariff. 

The statement made by AF Post and their use of tariff reads as if this were a tax being raised on Energy (specifically in sense of being a tax on goods that is originating from a foreign nation). Many who have interacted with the post have done so under this incorrect belief.

In regards to Energy specifically, a tariff is a rule or set of rules that govern Energy rates. In this definition of tariff, there are varying ways rates are charged depending on if you are a residence or a business (and even depending on how large of a business you are). Some rules amongst utilities may even charge different rates based on tiers of usage, or even time of day (peak hours). These rules on what rate to charge under which circumstance is called a tariff.

The article in Spanish shared by the AF Post from Argentinian news source TN was also using the Energy definition of a tariff.

What Javier Milei did was remove a subsidy that had been artificially lowering the energy rate for Argentinians who will now be paying the market rate. This was not an increase in the rate, or an “increase in the tariff (tax)” but rather a change in the tariff (rule) that eliminated the subsidy. 

Eliminating subsidies is a popular position amongst libertarians.

The post FACT CHECK: Did Javier Milei Raise Tariffs on Energy? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

While Donald Trump was met with mixed reactions at the Libertarian National Convention, a number of Libertarians have started to give this offer another look. Following the Libertarian Party selecting Chase Oliver as their Presidential Nominee, a number of Libertarians are declining to back a candidate who supports children using puberty blockers and hormones. Many also believe that the 34 felony count conviction of Donald Trump was indeed politically motivated to specifically railroad the leading candidate in the race.

Some Libertarians however are still skeptical of Donald Trump’s olive branch to the Libertarian Party members. I have seen this question posed many times:

“If Donald Trump said he would drain the swamp but didn’t do it in his first term, why should I believe he would do it in his second term?”

This is absolutely a fair question, and it is based on a correct premise. Donald Trump clearly did not drain the swamp in his first term, and quite the opposite included swamp creatures like Michael Bolton in his administration. History can certainly be a predictor of future behavior, but one can also learn from their mistakes. History is also not the only predictor of behavior. Libertarians also understand that incentives guide behavior, and the incentives are much different this time. There is one consistent factor that was a liability to Trump in his first term, but will be an asset to him in a second term. That factor being, Donald Trump loves Donald Trump.

He really loves Donald Trump.

This was clearly a liability in Trump’s first term, as he was susceptible to flattery. He let the wrong people around him and gave them access to levers of power. The deep state was amongst his cabinet, undermining him at every turn while keeping him in the dark the best they could. They gained this access simply by buttering Trump up and flattering him.

Donald Trump’s love of Donald Trump will be an asset in a second term because self preservation is on the line. Donald Trump wants to save Donald Trump. This will absolutely require drastic actions that Libertarians would call a good time. 

Trump has already surrounded himself with better people who are committed to draining the swamp. Close by his side is Vivek Ramaswamy who has written plans for mass layoffs in Federal alphabet agencies, stating we need to do to the Federal Government what Elon Musk did to Twitter. Ramaswamy has proposed staffing cuts initially as high as 75% to get the party started.

Almost every action imaginable that Trump would need to take to save his own ass aligns with Libertarian goals and large reductions in government.

And Trump really wants to save his own ass, because Donald Trump really loves Donald Trump.

The post Why Trump Will Drain The Swamp In His 2nd Term appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy delivered a speech and then sat for a short debate with Dave Smith and Clint Russell. RFK Jr also delivered a speech and then attempted to gain the Libertarian nomination to run for president, but was eliminated on the first ballot with less than 3% of the vote.

The most notable guest appearances would be a keynote speech from former congressman Ron Paul, as well as a speech from the 45th President of the United States Donald Trump.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden were both sent invitations to attend the Libertarian Party national convention to specifically address the concerns of Libertarians. Donald Trump accepted while Joe Biden did not.

As some mainstream outlets reported, Trump was met with boos while delivering his remarks. He was however also met with cheers and applause. It depended on what he was saying. Libertarians tend to respond case by case to ideas.

Trump seemed to receive his loudest boos when he stated he was endorsed by the NRA (for those who are confused here, Libertarians generally do not believe the NRA is pro gun enough, and tend to support other organizations like Firearms Policy Coalition or National Association for Gun Rights).

Trump received his biggest ovation when he promised to commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht who is serving life in prison for creating the Silk Road site. The crowd applauded and chants of Free Ross erupted in the auditorium while attendees waved Free Ross signs.

Ross Ulbricht responded on X (formerly Twitter) thanking Trump and expressing optimism that he may get a 2nd chance at freedom.

Trump’s commitment to commuting the sentence of Ross was part of an olive branch he was extending to Libertarians, as well as promising to include Libertarians in cabinet positions in his Administration should he win the 2024 election. He came to the convention to court Libertarians for their support. While Trump’s reception had mixed reactions, Libertarians would be wise to give it further consideration.

Everyone who was sitting in that room listening to Trump speak, and many others who watched online had a choice candidate running for the Libertarian nomination that they supported. Only one of those who ran received the nomination, and the nominee was Chase Oliver (the furthest left candidate who ran).

Many in the Libertarian Party believe that children should not be subject to gender transitioning practices such as hormones or reassignment surgeries. The belief that right leaning Libertarians have is that adults can make these decisions for themselves, but children cannot consent to this as they can’t grasp the risks or permanent implications. Chase has refused to come out against children being transitioned or kept apart from drag queen story hours, which is likely a bridge too far for many of the Libertarians who supported other candidates.

For those of you who are now open to reconsidering support of Donald Trump, the rest of this piece is for you.

Donald Trump is offering Libertarian wins on a Federal level that likely will never be achieved by the Libertarian Party. The clemency of Ross Ulbricht is a win for the cause. Involving Libertarians in his administration is a win for the cause. It gives Libertarians (for the first time ever) a seat at the table and an open invitation to give the Overton Window a gigantic push.

There are only 2 paths towards a Libertarian order. The first is the black pill; an entire collapse of society with the hope that Libertarians will fill that vacuum (when in reality those vacuums don’t tend to be filled by peace and cooperation, but rather the most sinister thing to fill it). The second is through incremental changes, the general order in which things move. If one recognizes change happens in increments, then it should be recognized that Libertarian influence is vital in moving towards a Libertarian order. This vital thing is being offered.

Libertarians tend to get stuck in ideological purity contests, with arguments of theory and Libertarian dogma determining who is the best Libertarian. Libertarian accomplishments have been determined by who wins what debate on whose podcast or YouTube channel.

Freeing Ross Ulbricht is a better achievement than winning an argument that few people watched which resulted in no change. Having a seat at the table and influencing policy into the ear of the President is an achievement.

If you think Republicans cannot effect change, ask yourselves what the Libertarian Party would look like today if Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 never happened. It would only be a shell of its current self. Almost every Trump supporter today who did not support Ron Paul when he ran all look back and say “Yes, Ron Paul was right.” It was a matter of Ron Paul Republicans being ahead of their time who made their way into the Libertarian Party. The others are catching up, and they’re asking us to help get them up to speed.

Ron Paul was right, and we have their attention. We can bring some of our ideas to fruition, and every single one we do would be a win we otherwise would never have achieved on our own. Prove Libertarian ideas work in practice rather than arguing in theory, and give those ideas staying power. There probably will never be a chance like this again.

The post Libertarians Should Consider Donald Trump’s Offer appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.