“Under My Thumb” – The Rolling Stones 

This bluesy Rock n’ Roll tune by one of the leading groups of the British Invasion of the mid-1960s is sure to make a blue-haired man-hater’s head explode.

In this song, Mick Jagger tells a story from the perspective of a man who has been in an emotionally abusive relationship. It’s a classic case of the old saying, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” After having fun running around, she realizes how good she had it with her previous lover and comes back begging for his affection and will do whatever he says. As he says, 

 “It’s down to me
Yes it is
The way she does just what she’s told down to me
The change has come
She’s under my thumb
Ah, ah, say it’s alright.”

 Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?

“Stand By Your Man” – Tammy Wynette 

Tammy Wynette’s classic country ballad, which she co-wrote with her record producer Billy Sherrill became a #1 hit on the country charts in 1968 and a top 20 pop hit. The song was written as a love song by a woman who ironically was preparing for her second divorce. It was marketed as Wynette’s response to the women’s liberation movement of the late 1960s.

The ballad will make all the femininazis cringe as it discusses a woman being loyal to her man even when he does things that aren’t right. The song faced just as much criticism by the women’s liberation when it was released as it has in more modern times.

“A Newsweek article called it a song, quote, “for the beleaguered housewife who grits her teeth as destiny dumps its slop on her head.” And fellow singer Jeannie C. Riley of “Harper Valley PTA” fame said, quote, “It sounds like you should take anything he dishes out.” Ironically, Wynette, while recording the song, was preparing to divorce her second husband for George Jones, another turbulent marriage she would eventually leave. Evelyn Shriver says Wynette defended the song, calling it a reflection of her background.”, according to NPR.

 The ballad was even mocked by former First Lady Hillary Clinton, according to The Wallstreet Journal.

 “Hard Headed Woman” – Elvis Presley 

Elvis the Pelvis was known for his ability to make women faint with his high energy shows, soulful southern voice, and legendary leg shakes. Feminists would be throwing something harder than themselves at the King of Rock ‘n Roll for this track.

In this song, Elvis takes us all the way back to creation in which he states that all the world’s problems have been caused by a “hard head woman and a soft-hearted man who have been causing trouble ever since the world began.”

The track highlights three biblical stories, including “Adam and Eve”, “Samson and Delilah”, and Jezebel and King Ahab. The lyrics light-heartedly poke fun of the female characters in each story, claiming that they were the source of each man’s downfall. Presley then relays his own frustrations with his own love interest in the last verse.

The song is great because it will throw the same logic feminists use by asserting that the patriarchy is the source of the world’s problems right back in their faces in a joking way.

 “A Woman’s Place is in the Home” – Gilbert O’ Sullivan

 1970’s Irish Pop Star Gilbert O’ Sullivan bangs out a ballad on his piano that will wreck every bra-burning broad’s mind. Sullivan’s song defends traditional western values, which he boldly states is that a woman belongs at home. In the mid-1970s, when the song was released, popular culture had already started to reject the idea of a woman staying home to raise her children and began pushing the idea that women should be in the workplace. Sullivan notes that he admires a woman “who can make it on her own,” but he believes a woman’s place in the home. If you want to destroy a loud-mouthed man-hater’s day, cranking this up on your nearest sound system should do the trick.

 “Bitches Ain’t Shit” – Dr. Dre

 To round out the list, Dr. Dre’s 1992 West Coast Rap classic is guaranteed to trigger any feminist tramp! Dr. Dre’s bumping beat talks about screwing women and using them for sex and kicking them to the curb. I should note that in no way do I think this is acceptable behavior, but if third-wave feminists are going to degrade good men, why not throw it back at them and have a little fun with it?  

There you have it, guys—five more fantastic tunes to trigger those self-loathing, man-haters who deep down are in desperate need of getting laid but too consumed with hate to admit it.

Image: Alec Perkins, Flickr

The post 5 More Fantastic Tunes to Trigger Feminists appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In an over 18 minute interview with Dr. Fauci, Hewit asked him to address what Fauci claimed are hurtful lies regarding COVID-19 vaccines spread by Brooklyn Nets guard Kyrie Irving and other NBA players who refuse to get vaccinated, as well as the government overreach that occurred as a result of how the pandemic has been handled.

“These are people; they’re not stupid people, and yet they have somehow or other been convinced of things that are just not factual, Hugh. You look at the data. The data are overwhelming that these are highly effective and safe. If you look at the track record of vaccines in general, what they’ve done for society and the benefit-risk ratio overwhelmingly weighs in favor of the benefit.” Dr. Fauci said.

When asked if he would step down as head of the NIH if it would result in an overall increase in the number of vaccinated Americans, Dr. Fauci firmly stated that he would not resign.

“I’ve lost confidence in the CDC and the FDA, and I actually believe a lot of Americans, a significant part of America, now have lost confidence in you, Dr. Fauci.”

“Is there a point where you will say I do more harm than good because people don’t listen to me anymore and step aside?” Hewitt asked.

“No, absolutely, unequivocally no, Hugh. Sorry. I mean I agree with a lot of the things you’ve been saying. You come from a different perspective than I do, but I think the thing that gets lost in the discussion and that people need to understand—and I do know that some people don’t understand it and don’t accept it, you know smart people, who evaluate it in their own context—is that we have been dealing with an evolving situation,” responded Fauci .

Even when Hewitt asked Fauci if he’d resign in favor of a fresh face that hadn’t flip-flopped on their position on COVID-19 if many more Conservatives would get vaccinated, Fauci declined and suggested Hewitt was creating a false narrative.

“Hew, I think that is a completely false narrative that people are not getting vaccinated because of me. I am very sorry—I’ve known you a long time, and I respect you, but I totally reject that people are not getting vaccinated because of me. Are you kidding me, Hew? Come on!”

Watch the full interview below:

The post Hugh Hewitt Asks Dr. Fauci to Step Down to Increase Vaccinations. Fauci Says “No!” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The news of Craig’s final appearance as Bond has left people wondering who will be the next person to play the iconic British spy of Ian Flemming’s novels.

Vogue.com released a list of 17 candidates that could potentially fill the role. The list includes Henry Golding, Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, and actress Lashana Lynch.

There has been a push among the “woke” culture to make the next 007 agent a female since Daniel Craig announced his retirement from the role. However, when Craig was asked in an interview with Radio Times what he thought about a female replacing him as the next Bond, the actor insisted that Bond should remain a male character.

“The answer to that is very simple,” he said. “There should simply be better parts for women and actors of colour. Why should a woman play James Bond when there should be a part just as good as James Bond, but for a woman?” Craig said, according to RadioTimes.com.

The fact that some people would even entertain the idea of transforming James Bond into Jane Bond is utterly preposterous. It makes no difference to me what ethnicity the new Bond is, considering the color of the actor’s skin would not fundamentally affect the story. However, making a male character a woman would utterly destroy every essential element that goes into making a James Bond movie.

In my mind, the only basic requirements to play James Bond are being a biological male, British, and being capable of carrying oneself with a sense of sophistication and machismo that has been key to the Bond character since he first appeared on screen in 1962.

In the spirit of honesty, it would be better to kill James Bond in the upcoming film and never make another 007 film than to make his character a woman. These words come from someone who has been a fan of the franchise for as long as I can remember. It is not that I am against strong female leads in film, but rather that changing the gender of the lead wouldn’t fit the storyline of a masculine, sophisticated, womanizing spy who saves the world from some global threat reminiscent of the Cold War. Not to mention, as great as the 007 series is, the James Bond movies today are a far cry from its glory days of the ’60s with legendary actor Sean Connery. It may be time to close the Bond story altogether rather than attempting to revive the same old storylines for 50 more years.

I agree with Daniel Craig that there should be better roles for women in the film industry instead of making a woman fit a male role. Regendering James Bond makes about as much sense as trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Furthermore, it is an insult to talented actresses to not give them a role which suits their own unique brand of storytelling and displays their feminity instead of ruining a story by attempting to reshape it to fit the woke cult’s taste.

Good examples of strong female leads in the modern era can be found in movies such as D.C. Comics’ “Wonder Woman” and Marvel’s “Black Widow.” Both of these films display strong female leads with characters that were made for women rather than trying to make a masculine role feminine.

Fortunately, the world’s favorite 007 spy doesn’t seem to be in danger of gender reassignment anytime soon, as Bond’s producer Barbara Broccolli, whose company, Eon Prods, has the rights to finance and distribute the franchise, told Variety, “He can be of any color, but he is male. I believe we should be creating new characters for women — strong female characters. I’m not particularly interested in taking a male character and having a woman play it. I think women are far more interesting than that.”

While it is still unknown who will replace Daniel Craig, we can be sure that as Bond continues to save the world for future generations on screen, his identity will be saved from the evil minions of the woke mob who want to destroy the western world.

Image: Wikimedia

The post It’s James Bond, Not Jane Bond: Daniel Craig Says No to Female 007 appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

There was even a petition started on Change.org in support of trying to get Crayola to remove ‘negro’ from its black Crayon.

How tone deaf have American social justice warriors become when they now can’t distinguish between legitimate examples of racism within society and the Spanish language?

Negro translates to black in Spanish. It’s not derogatory or offensive to say the color black. This behavior is a prime example of when outrage crosses with ignorance. According to languagemagazine.com, as of 2019, Spanish is spoken by 580 million people worldwide, which makes up 7.6% of the world’s total population. Langauagemagazne.com also reported that the language is studied by almost 22 million people in 110 countries and is the third most used language on the internet.

Crayola is a global company and makes crayons for people around the world, not just English speakers. The company even joined in the conversation on Twitter in an attempt to enlighten the outraged SJWs.

“With Crayola products sold in more than 80 countries and packaged in 12 different languages, Crayola is very much a global company. The word “negro” appears along with the words “black” and “noir” because it is the literal Spanish translation of the word black,” Crayola tweeted.

This outrage is based on nothing but pure ignorance of the Spanish language and the culture of the people around the world who speak it. It should also be said that it appears racist and exclusionary to want to remove a word from a product just because a group of people are enraged by a language they don’t understand. It is ironic that someone on the political left would scream about the need for inclusion and diversity in American society and then in the same breath say that the Spanish word for black should be removed from a crayon because it looks like the N-word.

There is a saying that leftists care about every form of  diversity except for diversity of thought.  However, this should serve as proof that they really couldn’t care less about any form of diversity and only want to use talk of these things to attempt to win over the votes of minorities every election cycle.

If SJW’s gave a crap about multiculturalism, you’d think they would spend more time learning basic cultural differences instead of claiming a language is racist just because it is similar to a derogatory word.

My message to all Spanish-speaking people in America is simple. If the same folks who claim to care about your background want to remove your native tongue from a crayon, don’t think for one minute that they care about you, the interests of your community, or your well-being.

As a freedom-loving American, it is my conviction that multiculturism is part of what makes this country great and unique among all the other nations of the world. Attempting to censor an individual’s language for any reason is wrong and not in line with the values of a country that was founded on the ideas of individualism and free speech, much less on the basis of ignorance and false assumption of bigotry.

There seems to be no sign that Crayola will bow to the “woke” mob anytime soon, which is good news.

Perhaps those offended that Spanish will not be taken off of Crayola’s ‘negro’ Crayon would be a lot better off if they would spend a little more time being culturally informed instead of showing the blackness in their own hearts toward a group of people whose language they do not understand.

If education doesn’t triumph over blind ignorance and hatred, we will have soon have much darker things to contend with than the word for a color on the back of a Crayon.

The post Triggered America: SJW’s Go Loco Over Spanish Language on Black Crayon appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The Congresswoman from New York wore a white dress with the words “Tax the Rich” written in large red letters across the back.

Tickets for the Met Gala cost $30,000 per person with tables start at $200,000, according to The New York Post.

A reporter for NewsMax, Benny Johnson, also claimed that AOC’s choice of attire for the event had a price tag of $1,000.

AOC must think she is the progressive counterpart to outspoken conservative singer/model Joy Villa, who first gained national attention with her “Make America Great Again” dress that she wore to the Grammys in support of former President Donald Trump in 2017. Villa, I might add, has shown much more dignity and grace than AOC ever dreamed of.

The problem lies not in making a political statement at a big event like the Met gala. In fact, I do not think it is out of place for a sitting member of Congress to make a political statement.

The issue at hand is the blatant hypocrisy of AOC’s message. It’s highly ironic that a sitting congresswoman would attend an event that costs $30,000 and wear a $1,000 gown, and then have the audacity to talk about taxing the rich!

AOC, you are the rich! Do you think middle-class Americans have the kind of money to attend high-class balls, wearing clothes that cost thousands of dollars? Do you think they have the connections or money to rub shoulders with the who’s who of the entertainment industry?

What would you say to your constituents about your decision to attend the Met Gala when so many are likely scraping by just to make ends meet? You are not a woman of the people. If you really cared, you would be fighting in Congress to keep the American economy open and removing regulatory burdens placed on the American people instead of trying to be a Progressive Cinderella.

This behavior is all too typical of progressive politicians and they whine and complain about people they call “rich elitists” while refusing to acknowledge their own arrogance. People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are no different than the kings and queens of old who wined and dined, getting fat and living easy off of the backs of people who suffered in poverty.

In spite of the congresswoman’s decision to attend the Met Gala, it’s not out of line to ask about her abuela’s  home in Puerto Rico that she claimed was severely damaged by Hurricane Maria back in June. AOC blasted former President Donald Trump for blocking relief to the island in the aftermath of the hurricane. If the congresswoman can afford to be at an event as prestigious as the Met Gala, surely she can afford to at least help take care of her grandmother’s home repairs.

Unless of course, she doesn’t really care about her grandmother and was just using her as a political prop in an attempt to increase government spending. Perhaps it is old-fashioned of me to think that if you genuinely love someone, you should help them when they are in dire circumstances if you have the means to do so. I hope that AOC’s grandmother is in a much better state of living these days—especially since her granddaughter thinks it is appropriate to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous while claiming to serve the common people of New York.

If AOC lived according to her principles, she would be appalled at the idea of attending the Met Gala while so many of her fellow Americans are suffering as businesses struggle to get by or have closed
due to government restrictions under the guise of a pandemic.

Tyrants of the past and present would be proud of the progressive darling who is living up to the mantra, “Do as I say and not as I do!”

The post Tax Me: The Hypocrisy of AOC’s “Tax The Rich” Dress appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“Chasten and I are beyond thankful for all the kind wishes since first sharing the news that we’re becoming parents. We are delighted to welcome Penelope Rose and Joseph August Buttigieg to our family.”, Buttigieg tweeted Friday.

The photo depicts Pete and his partner holding two infants while lying in a hospital bed.

“Where are the mothers? My heart goes out to these infants.”, Lila Rose tweeted in response to the photo.

“You can lose a mom or dad through death, abandonment/abuse, or by design (being intentionally brought into the world via invitro & surrogacy to be a child for a same-sex couple). It is wrong for us adults to pretend that loss of a loving mom (or dad) won’t affect the child.”, she continues in an additional tweet.

Twitter users took the opportunity to call out the president of the pro-life organization LIVE Action for what they saw as a very anti-life and anti-gay statement.

“I highly recommend this book (especially to the few angrily reacting here) to see the research why having a mom (adopted OR biological) is so key to child development. It may not fit your narrative, but for the sake of children, please look at the facts.”, Lila tweeted in response to her critics.

This tweet includes a link to a book entitled “Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters” by Erica Komisar.

As a Christian Libertarian and a staunch pro-life advocate, I can see both sides of the argument on this issue. Admittedly I don’t particularly like the idea of homosexuals adopting children due to my belief that it is contrary to God’s original intention for the family which you can see depicted in the opening chapter of Genesis. There’s even evidence that suggests a wide array of developmental and psychological issues by children who were raised by homosexual couples as opposed to heterosexual couples.

However, as a pro-life person and a Christian, I’d much rather a gay couple adopt a baby and raise the child than for the baby to be killed in the womb simply because the lifestyle choice of the parents is less than ideal according to biblical beliefs.

If a religious pro-life person’s chief goal is to make abortion both illegal and unthinkable, the best response would be to encourage all forms of adoption possible and remove many of the challenges that face couples who wish to adopt a child.

It is not necessarily anti-gay or hateful to have a moral issue with homosexual relationships as disagreement with someone’s lifestyle choice is not equal to harboring hatred in your heart for the person with whom you disagree. This is one of the biggest lies we have accepted in our modern culture. You can disagree with someone and still love who they are as a person. It is this genuine, unfiltered love that is the heart of the Christian message.

It is this love that is the driving force behind my support of gay couples adopting children. It is better for a child to be adopted by a gay couple than to die and not even have a chance to live. This position will likely not make me popular with many Christians or the LGBTQ community, but it is the most consistent pro-life position.

I hope that the Church realizes there are bigger issues at play than the private lives of two gay men. If God is the giver of life and we are His hands and feet in this world, the Church should focus on giving and defending life and let Him sort out all the details.

Christ makes all things new as it says in Revelation 21:5 (ESV) And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also, he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

The post Pro-life Leader Chastened for “anti-gay” Response to Pete Buttigieg Adoption Announcement appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation developed a gender diversity committee in 2019 to conduct research for what life was like in Colonial America for lesbians and transgender individuals.

“It’s not that the information isn’t there, it’s that it hasn’t been properly researched, and a lot of other groups are overrepresented in the historic record,” committee researcher Ren Tolson said. “We just assumed that people had similar ideas as current day and moved on, but that’s not entirely the case.”, according to The Virginia Gazette.

As a lifelong student of history, nothing angers me more than attempting to paint history in the image of current events, or trying to mold the attitudes of people from the past to fit our modern attitudes toward what is considered acceptable by today’s standards.

History is never exactly what we may want it to be, but it is there to be learned from so that we may better prepare for the challenges that lay ahead of us in the future. We must take the good with the bad and learn the lessons of the past, or we will repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.

This appears to be a textbook case of trying to rewrite history to fit a modern narrative by the people running The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Don’t just take my word for it—read the words of Beth Kelly, the Vice President of Education, Research and Historical Interpretation:

“We’re very open to making sure that we look for all of the people that were here in the 18th century; those that were in the margins and those whose voices were not able to be recorded or not able to be voiced and bring them forward,” Kelly told The Virginia Gazette.

I am not saying there weren’t people in colonial America who weren’t LGBTQ, as there have been homosexuals of all stripes since the dawn of humanity, but these individuals were not in the majority nor was it considered socially acceptable to be a homosexual during this period of American history. America is and was founded as a Christian nation, even though we have strayed far away from the ideas that birthed this country. People during this time would have been executed for their lifestyle choice if that were discovered as there were very strict laws concerning what was deemed acceptable in regard to sex at the time for both gay and straight people.

It is not to say that it is in line with Christian principles or morally correct for someone to be put to death for their choice of sexual partner, but it’s the way that the majority of people believed at the time. If the people in charge of the town of Colonial Williamsburg are interested in keeping with historical accuracy, will they show examples of people being put on trial and executed for being gay? You can bet your bottom dollar this is not what the researchers at Colonial Williamsburg will do. Instead, this is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite history further to attempt to control the “woke culture” narrative.

As the battle continues to rage between those of us who hold to the principles of liberty and those who aim to fundamentally transform this nation into something totally unrecognizable, we should respect and preserve our history as it is regardless of the past transgressions of our ancestors. If the people in charge of reenacting history cared so deeply about their craft, they would be on the frontlines of presenting the events and atitudes of our history—warts and all. This should be the goal of anyone who cares about history.

These criticisms of The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation are not written with any hatred or animosity toward LGBTQ people, but instead with a deep love for preserving the history of this country. If we wish to strive for a more perfect union that respects the liberties of all Americans, this should be paramount—not encouraging historical reenactors to put on a performance which deals with the sex lives of any individual, gay or straight.

The famous American historian David McCollough said, “Trying to plan for the future without a sense of the past is like trying to plant cut flowers.” If we attempt to rewrite history into our own image, the flower of human liberty will soon wither and die like a flower cut from its roots. That should deeply trouble all Americans.

Image: TLR composite, Flickr.

The post Queer Colonists: Colonial Williamsburg Historical Inclusion or Revisionism? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

When you think of Elvis Presley, the phrase “civil libertarian” might be among the last things to come to mind when referencing the legendary “King of Rock ‘n’ Roll.” However, if one were to study the details of the life of Elvis, nothing could be more apparent than that he was indeed an advocate for civil rights and significantly contributed to dismantling racial barriers that existed in American culture from the 1950s to the early 1970s.

In order to understand how revolutionary Elvis was, we must go back to the very beginning, long before he became one of the Founding Fathers of Rock ‘n’ Roll.

Elvis was born on January 8, 1935, in Tupelo, Mississippi to parents Vernon and Gladys Presley. Elvis grew up in extreme poverty in the deep South at a time when the nation was still extremely segregated, except among those who lived in extreme poverty. Young Elvis was greatly influenced by a wide array of musical genres including Gospel, Blues, Country, and R&B. It is likely both Presley’s devout Christian upbringing as well as his exposure to black culture throughout his lifetime motivated him to care about the struggle of black Americans for equality under the law.

Did Elvis march with Civil Rights activists such as Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X? No. In fact, very little is known about Elvis’ political views in general as he saw himself as strictly a musician and entertainer. However, when we consider the cultural barriers that Presley obliterated by integrating popular music, he enabled black musicians to enjoy the mainstream success that had eluded them for so long.

There is a long-standing lie that Elvis didn’t truly care about black people and was actually a racist who exploited black American musicians for decades prior to the dawn of his musical career. Nothing could be further from reality.

The origin of this misconception was a lie printed in a white-owned magazine created for a black audience called “Sepia.” The magazine published an article in 1957 asserting that Presley said, “The only thing Negroes can do for me is buy my records and shine my shoes.” The article in question stated that Elvis made this remark after playing a gig in Boston. However, when he was questioned about the statement by a reporter behind the scenes of his film, “Jailhouse Rock,” he said he not only never said that, but had never been to Boston at that time. Reverend Milton Perry also penned a piece in the highly popular black magazine “Jet,” where he spoke to black people who knew Elvis well who verified that the claim was not something he would say.

The King of Rock ‘n’ Roll also recorded songs that spoke to the issues of the black community during the height of the civil rights movement. Records such as “If I Can Dream,” “In the Ghetto,” and “Walk a Mile in My Shoes” certainly reflect his views on equality under the law and his social awarness concerning the issues of his day.

Elvis almost didn’t play the Houston Astrodome in 1970 because the people in charge told him that he could leave his backup singers at home because they were a black girl group. Elvis told the individuals in charge that not only were “The Sweet Inspirations” coming with him, but they would be allowed to ride in a Cadillac around the stadium right behind him or he wasn’t going to play the show. Needless to say, he got what he wanted and the women were treated fairly.

This might not sound like a big deal today, but considering the political and social climate of the late 1960s and early 70s, making such a statement was a bold move that could have cost him. Elvis chose not to play it safe and stood up for what is morally right.

It is almost impossible to find out what Presley believed politically as he was incredibly private when it came to political matters. Still, when it came to actions, there is no doubt that Elvis contributed greatly to the Civil Rights movement even though he never marched with Dr. King.

The song “If I Can Dream,” which is the closing song of his legendary ’68 Comeback Special, truly gives us a glimpse into the heart of a man who rose from the humblest of beginnings and became the innovator who changed the world of popular music in a way no one had before or since.

While his musical talent is often praised, the man himself and his contributions to the betterment of American society have been largely ignored. This aspect of the revolution that Elvis sparked should be celebrated as the precious gift that it is.

May the world always remember Elvis, and may we all use our gifts to better the world just as he did—even if he was never given the respect he truly deserved.

Long live the King of Rock ‘n’ Roll!

Image: YouTube

The post “If I Can Dream”: Elvis’ Cultural Contributions to Civil Rights appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

No one seems to know for sure what this means, but libertarians of all backgrounds are tweeting their support of the company’s CEO tweeting a link to the foundational book of one of the major schools of thought in Libertarianism.

Jack’s tweet has garnered approval from some prominent named Libertarian individuals and organizations, including former Congressman Justin Amash, 2020 LP vice-presidential candidate Spike Cohen, the Libertarian Party’s Mises Caucus, 2022 GA LP gubernatorial candidate Shane Hazel and many official accounts for several state branches of the Libertarian Party.

Some members of the liberty community joined in the thread to call for the Twitter CEO to cease his censorship of the liberty movement online and create a space that honors the spirit of the first amendment and the American tradition of free speech. 

The LP Mises Caucus even posted a screenshot of #Rothbard trending on Twitter nearly three hours after Jack tweeted out the link to a free online copy of “Anatomy of the State” published on Mises.org.

 Is the CEO of one the largest tech giants on the yellow brick road of libertarianism to AnCapistan? Only time will tell, but one thing is sure—this single act promoted the ideas of liberty, peace, and free markets—and that’s something worth celebrating.

The post Twitter CEO Rocks Libertarian Twitter With Mysterious Rothbard Tweet appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Beck described the perilous journey of an unnamed 23-year-old Cuban mechanic who braved the trip from Cuba to the U.S. to escape Communism twice, only to be deported and back on Cuban soil four days after risking life and limb trying to make it to America.

“I want you to think about that; how hard is it for you to leave your friends, your family, and your job for something that you know. You’re moving to Denver; you’re moving someplace else. Think about the pressure that is on you, think about the butterflies that you have in your stomach. About finding new doctors, a new school for your kids, a new job, new friends. I don’t want to leave my friends—my family is all here. Now imagine you’re going to a place where you can never go back. You’re not going to see your parents and your friends,” Beck told his listeners.

Glenn called out the Biden administration and the Left for allowing immigrants to flood the country with no discrimination while refusing to allow Cubans in the country who are attempting to flee the country’s Communist regime.

He quoted the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, saying that he understood its true meaning. Beck suggested that one day Leftists might claim the monument was a symbol of hate.

Beck also called on Republicans to fly to Miami and to invite Democrats to come along to stand arm-in-arm with the Cuban people who love America.

“This might piss a bunch of people off, but what do I have to lose? I’d leave this country in a heartbeat. I’d renounce my citizenship in a heartbeat. I’d take down my American flag in a heartbeat. If you could come up with something better. If you had someplace or something, some idea that had a better mission statement than the Declaration of Independence and you had a better Constitution than this one, and you had people who were like our pilgrims and many of our founders— they were in it for people and freedom. I’d go, but so far that offer hasn’t come up.” Glenn said Monday.

Listen to Glenn’s full monologue here below:

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post Glenn Beck Says He’d Leave America If There Was Something Better appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.