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.

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.

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.

Men would fire back that not all men were dangerous to women, and any bear you run into in the woods is dangerous. All things ‘No Shit.’

To be fair, not all men and women were at odds, rather it was a vocal minority on each side. Plenty of others simply laughed at the memes that came out of the controversy. You can always rely on memes. But for that vocal crowd this became a polarizing all or nothing debate, where in reality this is another example that two things can be true. 

Where did things go wrong? The concern that women have is obviously valid and true. However the framing of this concern was done exceptionally poorly, which gave birth to natural exceptions coming from men. Women were receiving “not all men” as a response because the thought experiment included all men. Women certainly were not saying that all men are this way, but it did construct yet another caricature about men that was unflattering, essentially stating that they are to be viewed as animals or sexual predators regardless of whether or not they are. While illustrating points can be beneficial for making a point, venturing into hyperbole about people is not a good way to convince them to listen to you. 

The thought experiment became less and less honest as the women making this comparison demanded control of all nuance. No nuance allowed from men, nor even from women who made counter points.

Below is a post from a woman extending the logic from the forest to women’s spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms. 

She is told that this is irrelevant despite it being a natural and logical extension of the thought experiment. It is clearly an applicable element of this debate, so why is it irrelevant? Because you don’t control the nuance, that’s why. You don’t get to suggest this. That’s not where we intended for this conversation to go. 

Here seems like a good place to casually mention that just about every day a female adult sexually assaults a gradeschool boy.

The data is clear. Obviously way more women are harmed or killed by men than by bears every year. So why wouldn’t this comparison make the grandest of sense to everyone? Why wouldn’t men just understand that they should be perceived as threatening everywhere they go?

Let’s talk about how men understand this.

The thought experiment is centered around chance encounters with strangers. Men actually understand chance encounter violence very well, because more men are killed by strangers than women (and yes, we recognize that it is mostly men doing the killing).

While chance encounter violence does occur with women, the overwhelming majority of danger to women comes from intimate partners. When you see women justifying the Man VS Bear thought experiment due to 1 in 4 women experiencing sexual violence, what they are citing is an intimate partner and not a chance encounter with a stranger (which voids the premise behind the thought experiment).

Men understand bad men being intimate partners pretty well too. If you’re a man reading this, then much like myself you’ve probably warned a woman friend about an intimate partner they’ve started seeing, and she didn’t listen to you. You’re nodding yes, I can see you. You knew it was going to end badly and It did. The things you either knew about this guy, or were able to sense by his mannerisms and communications, were actually selling points to her. 

There’s a reason the vocal minority of women who are incredibly invested in this latest controversy also are conflating intimate partner violence with random chance to spread suspicion amongst all men. They’re attracted to red flags and are trying to absolve themselves of poor decision making.

Listen to the below audio clip obtained by Journalist Jonathan Choe. In this three minute voice clip sent to a friend by Liliya Guyvoronsky, she details why she has not left a toxic relationship. She gives plenty of good reasons for why she wants to leave that relationship, but listen to the reason why she hasn’t left. Now please understand that she is dead.

Liliya details many red flags about this person as reasons why she wants to leave, but the reason why she stayed is horrifying. She was emotionally invested in quite arguably the worst thing about this person. He would role play sex trafficking her, and she was so intrigued by the disturbing role play and she wanted to know what would happen next. Next she was murdered. 

Is it Liliya’s fault she was murdered? No. Is her murderer, James McNeal responsible for her death? Yes. Would Liliya still be alive if she were smarter? Also yes.

Do not absolve yourselves of poor decision making. Two things can be true.

The post Woman VS Bear: Two Things Can Be True appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In addition to funding wars, Congress appropriates trillions of questionable dollars to anyone in the U.S. to address COVID-19 and green technology without any evidence of effectiveness or need.

At least $18 trillion of our $34 trillion national debt can be attributed to some combination of undeclared wars, misinformation, and lies. Every taxpayer is left with the $260,000 tab that accompanies federally created inflation, decaying schools, rising interest rates, declining wages, sagging productivity, labor strikes, supply chain problems, increasing taxes, open borders, and terrorists in the homeland. These problems are not music to the ears of Americans who “get another day older and deeper in debt.”

The unfortunate aspect of this situation is that as much as one-half of the national debt might have been avoided by honesty from our presidents and a Congress willing to debate the critical issues of the day.

$18 trillion of policy mistakes that could have been avoided by a serious debate in Congress and good quality information.

 Vietnam (1965-1973). The U.S. was not attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin as it claimed, yet that lie was our excuse for waging a war against North Vietnam that killed 58,220 American soldiers, wounded 153,303, and another 1,643 are still missing. The war cost U.S. citizens $168 billion in the 1960s-1970s, which would be over $1 trillion today. The costs of that war continue today, with around $22 billion in compensation for injured veterans and lifetime benefits for their families. U.S. involvement in the war ended in 1973, but the U.S. withdrawal was a roadmap to its disgraceful surrender in Afghanistan.

 Afghanistan and Global War on Terror (2001 to 2022). After terrorists crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers in NYC and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, the home of the terrorists. The global war on terror began and lasted for two decades. The U.S. stayed at war in the Middle East 18 years after President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished.”  Its cost is estimated at $8 trillion and over 900,000 deaths. Even after the war ended, the U.S. estimates $2.2 trillion for the future care of our veterans. After two decades of fighting in Afghanistan, the U.S. disgracefully abandoned the war and the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who worked to help the Americans. The U.S. also left $7.12 billion worth of equipment for the terrorists to use against us.

The Iraq War (2003 – 2011). The Iraq War was the result of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies falsely telling the American people Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destructions (“WMD”). Hussein did not have any WMD. Rather, the war was President Bush’s obsession to remove Hussein from power to correct what he believed was a mistake by Father Bush not to invade Iraq and eliminate Saddam Hussein. The cost of the Iraq war was $1.8 trillion and cost 550,000 lives.

Ukraine War (2022-present). So far, the U.S. has spent $115 billion on the Ukraine war with Russia. Presently, the U.S. Senate wants to give Ukraine another $60 billion. While the history of the Ukraine War is not written, there is considerable controversy over the U.S. role in the 2014 coup that overthrew the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. The U.S. and the EU certainly wanted a friendly Ukrainian government. The toppling of the Russian-friendly ruler and the installation of a pro-western ruler of Ukraine led to Russia invading and taking Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

Complicating Ukrainian politics, in 2016, after a new Ukraine president was installed,  then Vice President Biden threatened to deny Ukraine $1 billion if the president of Ukraine did not fire Special Prosecutor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, a corrupt company that paid large sums of money to Hunter Biden to lobby the Obama administration to force Ukraine to end the investigations of its corruption. Now President Biden has forcefully stated he will support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” The final cost of war is unknown, and the cost of rebuilding Ukraine will be in the hundreds of billions.

Additional Wars (1950-2022). In addition to four major undeclared wars, the U.S. has been involved in the Korean War, Laotian Civil War, Permesta Rebellion, Lebanon crisis, Bay of Pigs, Dominican Civil War, Korean DMZ conflict, Cambodian Civil War, Lebanese Armed Forces, Grenada, Libya, Tanker war, invasion of Panama, Somali, Bosnian and Croatian wars, Kosovo war, intervention in Yemen, intervention in North-West Pakistan, second intervention in Somali Civil War, Ocean Shield, Operation Observant Compass (Uganda), intervention in Niger, Syrian Civil War, second intervention in Libya, Operation Prosperity Guardian (Red Sea conflict).

Cost of Covid (2019-2022). The federal government spent over $4.6 trillion during the Covid pandemic. Most of the money went to individuals and corporations to keep them afloat during the government-mandated shutdown and to Big Pharma for the vaccines that were never properly tested. There is considerable conflict over the usefulness of the Covid vaccines. Moreover, there are many who believe the lockdowns, school closures, fraud, lost productivity, and the rise in mental health cases will cost the U.S. many trillions in the future. The OECD estimates the cost of the lost learning in the U.S. will be $14.1 trillion. Congress never received any information from either Trump or Biden on the origins of COVID-19.

The Inflation Reduction Act (2023). The IRA is not about reducing inflation in any manner. It was about funding green technology. The IRA tax credits for anything “green” incentivized more pigs to show up at the trough than CBO estimated. Within months after the program started, Goldman Sachs raised its estimated cost of the credits to  $1.2 trillion for the same time period. The original forecast missed the cost of the credits for electric vehicles by $379 billion; energy manufacturing, $156 billion; renewable electricity production, $82 billion; energy efficiency, $42 billion; hydrogen, $36 billion; biofuels, $34 billion; and carbon capture, $31 billion.

Governments Make Mistakes; unfortunately, the U.S. federal government does not learn from them.

 The total cost of these few policy mistakes is well over $18 trillion. As to the wars, Congress never declared any of them. As to Vietnam and Iraq, the American people were simply lied to.  As to the COVID cover-up, the most disconcerting fact is that the federal government continues to refuse to tell citizens the origins of COVID-19 or provide scientific studies to support the mandated vaccinations, lockdowns, closures, or other police state tactics.

The U.S. federal government appears to be incapable of learning from its mistakes. The U.S. involves itself in war after war, yet Congress rarely debates the need for the war before the president sends money, equipment, troops, or some combination of war assistance to the fight. The U.S. federal government passes society-changing policies like COVID and IRA and appropriates trillions to implement them with few, if any, members of Congress or the president even reading the summaries of the laws.

The American people deserve more for the $6 trillion they send to Washington each year and the $34 trillion the federal government borrowed in our name. Asking Congress to perform its constitutional responsibility to declare war before the president sends troops and/or equipment to fight the war is not unreasonable. Demanding the Executive to provide the science underlying major public health emergency orders is not unreasonable. Demanding our leaders tell us the truth, rather than lies, about what the government is doing is not unreasonable. Unfortunately, Congress and the president seem very content with living in a state of undeclared wars, perpetual misinformation, and lies.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Half the National Debt is from Wars, Misinformation and Lies appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

There are three distinct views on what beauty is or ought to be. On the far left, the perspective is that beauty is subjective; therefore, women can be fat and beautiful, or not biologically female and beautiful, or have armpit hair or dyed pink hair. The second view equates beauty with sex appeal, as epitomized by the adage “sex sells.” This perspective emphasizes objectification and nudity, with physical attributes enhanced through plastic surgery, breast and butt enhancements, lip fillers, heavy makeup, and the Playboy magazine model aesthetic. This ideology manifests differently across ideologies but ultimately revolves around nudity. For the right, it’s nostalgia for Baywatch, hot women in bike ads, and Dukes of Hazzard. For the left, it’s drag queens, nude Twitch streamers, or Kim Kardashian lookalikes. Their concept of femininity is tied to raw sexual expression or nudity in the name of freedom. The third view holds that beauty lies in modesty. Examples include Muslim women and traditional Christian women who wear headscarves, long skirts, and little to no cleavage, embodying the “trad waifu” ideal. Due to ideological differences, these perspectives often clash.

The most prominent view of beauty propagated by the left is fat positivity, moving away from traditional femininity. This belief argues that conventional beauty standards are discriminatory, excluding fat women, disabled women, or women who refuse to shave. Critics of these standards cite mental health issues caused by unrealistic beauty ideals, like the promotion of extreme thinness in the ‘90s and early 2000s fashion industry, which led to widespread eating disorders. Body positive activists argue that conventional beauty harms young girls’ self-esteem, pushing them towards drastic surgeries and excessive makeup use.

Slate published an article titled “I’m a Little Bummed That Adele Lost Weight,” lamenting that Adele represented a body type often criticized. Despite fat positivity activism, obesity has been normalized in American culture. According to USAFacts.org, 70% of Americans are now overweight or obese, up from 13% in 1962. Despite obesity’s known health risks, including heart disease, diabetes, and various cancers, body positivity activists often claim to be healthy exceptions. Yet, they differ from sumo wrestlers, who must change their diet upon retirement and lead a lifestyle unlike the average American.

The second type of beauty emphasizes raw sexual expression or nudity in a more traditional sense, focusing on sexual poses, makeup, and revealing clothing. This perspective can be conservative, highlighting femininity through women’s exclusive attire, or liberal, embracing women’s sexuality as self-expression and empowerment. However, it often leads to objectification, desensitization to sexual imagery, and unhealthy body trends. A Wall Street Journal report from the Facebook Files indicated that 32% of teen girls felt worse about their bodies after using Instagram. The early 2000s trend towards extreme thinness also pushed many young women towards anorexia. This beauty ideal is not universally accepted, with some conservative Americans deeming risqué attire socially inappropriate.

The third category, often promoted by conservatives, defines beauty as modesty, linked to a motherly and traditionally religious figure. The “trad wife” trend emphasizes modesty and traditional gender roles, advocating against excessive makeup. Influencers like Trio Mandili, Ms. Pakistan, and Abby Shapiro exemplify this trend. However, this perspective is not without its critics, who argue that it can lead to judgmental and hypocritical attitudes, particularly within the Red Pill community.

In conclusion, beauty and fashion have become politicized, often serving as a barometer for values. However, judging someone solely on their appearance is unfair, as cultural norms pressure many women into adopting certain styles. People can change, and what matters most is their internal character, not their past behavior or current fashion choices.

The post The Politicization of Beauty and Fashion Across the Political Spectrum appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Later members to join The Syndicate include prosecutors in DC, Florida, New York, and Georgia who indicted the former president in the middle of the presidential election season. They seek jail, fines, and the destruction of Trump and his businesses.  Now, the prosecutors seek immediate trials based on the urgency of the situation, which is the need to put the former president in jail before the November election. This type of abuse of power should be terrifying to Americans.

More recently, two events pushed speculation of a coup into an evidence-based theory of a coup d’état. Colorado and Maine joined The Syndicate by removing the former president from their state presidential ballots. Eleven more states have cases pending to remove Trump from their ballots. The justification for this blitzkrieg of lawsuits is “apparently” a “law review” that asserts Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment (“Section 3”), a Civil War Amendment, forbids President Trump from ever again holding office since he somehow participated in an undefined, not judicially established, insurrection.

The second event involves the Georgia and New York prosecutors spending hours at the White House on litigation strategy and the Georgia prosecutors getting legal counseling from the Monkey Trial Committee. These meetings are the essence of coordination.

Since Sinclair Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” in 1935, many authors have raised the question: Is Democracy so fragile that the U.S. could become a dystopian nation? So far, the writers have been wrong. They have been right. However, Democracy is fragile. Unfortunately, Democracy may be so fragile the U.S. may be in the process of becoming the dystopian place writers fictionalize.

But for the political advantage to the Democrats, the events of January 6^th would have been defined as a riot, “a violent disturbance of the peace by a group of people.” Unfortunately, The Syndicate, by deeming Trump’s action an insurrection, positions them to eliminate Trump and take control of the government. As part of its fantastic narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, claims it was in existential fear of destruction by “several rioters having firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Syndicate’s reaction to the January 6^th riot is best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The January 6^th crowd so “paralyzed” the then Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send in the National Guard. These political elites seemed confident the FBI infiltrators planted in the crowd to incite legal demonstrators to break the law would prove the truth of their insurrection narrative. Two thousand demonstrators entered the Capitol, and 1100 were arrested. A nationwide manhunt continues for many others. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without the right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is its largest in U.S. history.

If January 6^th turns out to be a riot and not an insurrection, the systematic actions by The Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means. Did The Syndicate label January 6^th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute Trump supporters and organize the entire political machinery of the nation to “Get Trump” and remain in power?

The relevant parts of the 14^th Amendment read:

Section 3. No person shall…hold any office…under the United States or any state, who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution… [if such person] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

• Section 3 is not limited to the Civil War.
• It operates independently of criminal proceedings or an impeachment.
• It is self-executing by any state election official.
• It is an immediate disqualification from office.
• “…public officials don’t need special permission from lawmakers to disqualify Trump from the ballot: if they believe their argument valid, they can disqualify potential candidates on their own” and any ballot within their jurisdiction.
• Finally, “[T]he election officials are legally required to do so.”

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, it repeals, supersedes, or satisfies them, including the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws and Trump’s Due Process and free speech rights. The authors believe eliminating all these constitutional rights can be implemented without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, or the need for judicial determinations of fact and law. The authors pronounce election officials are empowered to disqualify Trump. According to the National Council of State Legislators, there are more than 10,000 election administration jurisdictions in the U.S. There are likely thousands of election officials. Can each disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are so vast as to establish bad faith. First, the proponents of “Get Trump” ignore section 5 altogether, i.e., that Congress has the power to enforce section 3 by legislation, and it has not. Moreover, the term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14^th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, the 14th Amendment cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague and a denial of due process. The two federal cases addressing Section 3 rejected its use to disqualify government officials from holding office. In In re Griffin (1869), Justice Chase rejected the application of Section 3 as it would cause legal chaos. Most importantly, the application of Section 3, as claimed, denies defendants due process and several other constitutional guarantees. In U.S. v. Powell (1871), the court ruled there must be findings of fact before rendering any decision.

The foundation of a self- coup d’état theory rests on a set of actions to deny the American people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice:

1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by The Syndicate to circulate false information to make the public believe the Russians compromised him.
2. The lies about Trump led to two impeachments in the House. While the Senate acquitted Trump, the actions of The Syndicate had the intended negative impact on the Trump presidency.
3. As far back as 2019, The Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. They also hid that there were 5400 Biden emails in which Joe Biden used the pseudonyms “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” to conceal the Biden money laundering activities with Ukraine, Russia, and Romania.
4. The Syndicate, in violation of federal law, tipped off Hunter Biden that his storage units were to be raided, thereby allowing Hunter to remove all incriminating evidence.
5. The circulation of false information about Trump by The Syndicate continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
6. As to the January 6^th riots, The Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by the Republicans in Congress.
7. The Monkey Trial committee formed by the House Democrats prohibited Republicans from naming their members to the Committee, thereby preventing the cross-examination of witnesses and a fair hearing on the day’s events.
8. After President Trump left office, The Syndicate waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Syndicate, using public resources, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. There is no record of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the international Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals focused the government’s prosecution in one court.
9. All the prosecution trials are scheduled during campaign season to ensure Trump cannot campaign against Biden. The Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution by disqualifying Trump from the presidential ballots in states controlled by Democrats.
10. The Syndicate seeks to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any judge or election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office.
11. The meetings between the prosecutors, the White House, and the January 6^th committee reveal the Syndicate’s coordination.
12. Finally, the DOJ and FBI refuse to provide Congress with the information requested to establish a continuing coverup by the federal government.

One hundred thirty-six federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing. These emergency powers were used during COVID. These emergency laws can be used again for countless purposes. Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. Americans would be fools, however, to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. It may be happening.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

Keyword: Coup d’état

Tags:

Meta description:

The post Is It Happening Now, A Government Coordinated Coup d’état? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

If punishment is the desire, Congress, as the legislative branch, can’t impose it. If Congress exposes the corruption, DOJ will not prosecute it, as evidenced by the Horowitz and Durham reports of government corruption.

Since the DOJ and FBI are impeding the congressional investigations, the only viable option left for the Committees is to secure the testimony of all relevant witnesses by granting “use immunity” to the Biden family, Hunter’s business associates, and the past and present leadership of the DOJ and FBI. Congress has this power under 18 U.S.C. sec 2005.

Once receiving use immunity, the witnesses can testify free of prosecution for any testimony concerning their criminal activity. A refusal to answer subjects the witness to Contempt of Congress and could result in imprisonment.

Congress has the sole discretion to grant use immunity. Moreover, neither the DOJ nor the courts can interfere with the grant of it. Title 18 USC sec. 6005 authorizes either House of Congress to grant use immunity once an individual refuses to give testimony or provide other information based on his privilege against self-incrimination.

Historically, Congress is reluctant to grant use immunity since it usually results in an inability of the DOJ to prosecute criminals. DOJ describes the dilemma:

Congress may now be forced to choose between granting immunity to exercise its oversight and investigative functions and forgoing a grant of immunity to allow the prosecution of key witnesses.

In the present situation, however, Congress is not facing a dilemma since DOJ is unwilling to prosecute any of the involved parties.

In the Watergate trials, like today, the DOJ refused to cooperate with Congress. The US Senate sought to grant use immunity to witnesses. DOJ asserted it, and the court has the power to block the grant of immunity. Chief Judge Sirica upheld the Senate’s power, writing:

Immunity is the fixed price which the government must pay to obtain certain kinds of information, and only the government [Congress] can determine how much information it wants to ‘buy’ in light of the fixed price.

Obtaining an immunity order from the district court is straightforward. In this instance, a duly authorized representative of the House of Representatives or the Committee seeking the testimony shall request a court order to require a witness to give testimony. The House or the concerned Committee must give ten days’ notice of the request to the Attorney General.

The district court must grant the congressional request if it finds:

1. In the case of a proceeding before either House of Congress, the request was approved by a majority vote of the members present, or
2. In the case of a proceeding before a committee, the request for such an order was approved by two-thirds of the members of the Committee; and
3. That the Attorney General was given ten days’ notice. The Attorney General can request another twenty days to “insulate from the immunity grant any incriminating data already in his files prior to the witness’s testimony.”

Once these conditions are met, the statute is mandatory. “The court shall” issue the order. Chief Judge Sirica held section 6005 casts the role of the court as ministerial, and the Attorney General is deprived of his normal discretion concerning the granting of immunity.

Judge Sirica concluded: “[There is a] power of the Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.” Quoting President Wilson, he notes the informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

The American people are owed the truth about corruption in their government. The House of Representatives has the power to obtain the truth. What is more important to the nation, truth or the false hope of punishment?

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post Use Immunity: Congress Can Find Truth by Forgoing Punishment appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.