North Carolina's ballot carries three proposed constitutional amendments this fall. Run each through one libertarian test and you get two yesses — one with an asterisk — and a no.

by: Rob Yates, LPNC Communications Director

This is an OpEd, and not the official position of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

This year, we have three proposed amendments to the North Carolina Constitution on our ballots. They’re all the way at the end, after Senate, House, NC Senate, NC House, local election, and anything else on which you might be voting, so make sure you don’t miss them.

All three were put there by the Republican majority in the General Assembly, and amendments skip the governor's desk entirely, so no veto stands between them and you. Kudos to the legislature for letting the people decide, although take that with a grain of salt, as they have run tried this before. In 2018, heading into a rough midterm, they loaded six amendments onto the ballot. Political scientists have been plain about the logic — put "taxes" and "limit" in the same sentence and base voters show up. That's no reason to vote against these. It's a reason to read them yourself instead of letting either party read them to you.

Libertarians can do that with a single test. A constitution exists to restrain the government, not the governed. So, ask of each amendment, does it increase freedom, or restrict it?

The question matters more than usual this year, because two of these amendments hinge on nearly the same sentence: the General Assembly "shall enact general laws" on the subject, "which may include exceptions." Each is a standing order to the legislature with the details left blank. What separates them is where the order points.

"Constitutional amendment to require all voters, not just those presenting to vote in person, to present photo identification before voting."

The first proposed amendment would broaden the ambit of voters required to show ID when voting. Currently, the constitution requires photo ID from voters "offering to vote in person." This amendment strikes "in person," extending the requirement to everyone, including absentee-by-mail voters.

In practice, it changes little, at least today. State law already requires mail-in voters to tuck a photocopy of an acceptable ID or an ID exception form into the envelope with their ballots. The amendment exists to move that rule out of a statute a future legislature could change and into the constitution, where it can't be touched without another statewide vote. Lawmakers approved it in a December 2024 lame-duck session, while Republicans still held the 72 House seats they needed to pass amendments without Democratic help. (The election a month earlier had already cost them the 72nd, arguably because of their failure to override the SB50 veto of constitutional carry.)

Run through the freedom test, this vote does not increase freedom. Instead, it restrains voters, and it gives the legislature a permanent constitutional mandate to decide which documents count and who qualifies for an exception. Voting is the one transaction with the state in which the citizen is supposed to be the unfettered, unrestricted boss. Requiring a government-issued credential to do it, and mailing a copy of your license to the county board to prove you're you, runs the relationship backward.

The LPNC opposed the 2018 in-person ID amendment as a solution in search of a problem, one that expands the state at the people's expense. Extending it to the mailbox doesn't change that.

This is not to say that there is no logic behind this amendment, especially in North Carolina. Mail-in voting is where North Carolina's most serious modern election-fraud scandal happened. The 2018 absentee-ballot operation in Bladen County forced a do-over of a congressional election. Supporters of the amendment argue that this is a small change to protect our elections, and that there is evidence to back up the request.

But that scheme was uncovered, the result thrown out and its organizer criminally charged, all achieved under laws already on the books. And the ID-copy rule this amendment would enshrine is already on the books, too. What the amendment adds isn't security, it's permanence. A constitution shouldn't be in the business of making burdens on citizens permanent.

Of all the ways the government can further insert itself into our lives and restrict freedom, voter ID is low on the list. It is not a significant imposition, and you are required to present ID for so many other things in your daily lives; the real issue is the government requiring you to carry government-issued papers that it can demand at its arbitrary will. (I will also note the incredible irony that the state wants a picture of you to vote, but wants to prosecute Susan Hogarth for sharing a picture of her vote. I call on everyone to post ballot selfies on November 3).

However, small imposition or not, it remains an imposition. In the humble opinion of your Communications Director, vote AGAINST this amendment.

"Constitutional amendment to keep the State income tax rate from being raised higher than three and one-half percent (3.5%)."

The second proposed amendment lowers the constitutional ceiling on the state income tax rate from 7% to 3.5%, for tax years beginning in 2027. The cap applies to "the rate of tax on incomes," personal and corporate alike.

In practice, this amendment changes nothing next April, or ostensibly in the subsequent few years. North Carolina's flat rate is 3.99% this year, and the budget enacted in July already drops it to 3.49% in 2027 and 3.24% in 2030, with more cuts scheduled after that. The corporate rate is already on a path to zero.

That's the opposition's favored refrain. Gov. Josh Stein calls the amendment a "millionaire protection cap" and argues it won't lower anyone's taxes. On the second point he's right, and it doesn't matter. This isn't a tax cut. It's a lock on the door after the tax cut, insurance against the next legislature that decides North Carolinians are undertaxed. Majorities in Raleigh change; Republicans lost their House supermajority two years ago. A constitutional cap outlasts all of them.

As for "millionaire protection," the cap protects every earner from the same thing, a rate above 3.5%. What it rules out is a graduated schedule with a top bracket above that line. Libertarians call that a feature.

It passes the freedom test cleanly. This amendment restrains government — specifically, the state's claim on what you earn. When voters lowered the cap from 10% to 7% in 2018, the LPNC endorsed it on the grounds that, while Libertarians would rather workers keep everything they earn, a ceiling is at least a step toward controlling the growth of government. Same logic, half the number.

Of course, a rate cap isn't a spending cap. A state that can't raise income taxes can still grow through sales taxes, fees, borrowing, and federal dollars, as well as by pushing costs down to counties, which raise money the old-fashioned way, from your house. That's why the two tax amendments arrived together, out of the same budget deal between Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall. Real change that benefits the economy of North Carolina and the wallets of its people will require significant cuts in spending as well.

Regardless, a tax cap is a tax cap, and tax caps that get lower are a good thing. In the humble opinion of your Communications Director, vote FOR this amendment.

"Constitutional amendment requiring limits on property tax increases by local governments."

The third constitutional amendment on the ballot this year would require the General Assembly to pass laws limiting how much local property tax levies can increase. However, it doesn't set the number. That comes later, in legislation, and "may include exceptions."

What would this amendment change right away?

Potentially a lot.

North Carolina has no state property tax; counties and cities set their own, and they've long had a reliable move. A revaluation sends home values up, the board trims the rate a little, announces a "rate cut" and collects considerably more money. State law requires local budget officers to calculate a revenue-neutral rate in revaluation years. Nothing requires the board to adopt it.

A levy limit goes after the right number. Not the rate, which officials can trim, rename and spin, but the levy, or the total dollars taken. Cap how fast that can grow and the revaluation trick stops working. Local governments have to do what households do when income doesn't keep pace with wants — set priorities.

This matters most to the people least able to fight back. A retiree who paid off her house decades ago hasn't seen her income keep pace with her assessment. Under the current system, a county commission can tax her out of a home she owns free and clear without ever casting a vote to "raise taxes." A limit on levy growth gives her something local government has never offered, predictability.

Opponents argue that one statewide limit can't fit both Bertie County and Mecklenburg. That argument doesn’t hold water, though, as the amendment limits growth, not level. The argument about county-by-county applicability takes issue with statute, not principle.

This amendment passes the freedom test. However, it comes with a giant asterisk.

Read the new sentence closely, because of what it takes for granted. It doesn't limit the property tax. It limits increases in the property tax. The constitution already assumes local governments will tax property; this amendment goes a step further and writes the tax's growth into the constitutional design, as something to be metered rather than questioned. Whatever your county levies today becomes the protected baseline. The amendment asks nothing of it.

That's a problem for libertarians, because the property tax is the purest expression of the idea that you never really own anything. Pay off the mortgage and you still owe rent — to the county, every year, for the rest of your life, on pain of foreclosure. A levy limit makes that arrangement more bearable. That's the point of it. And bearable things last. Every shocking revaluation notice puts pressure on the system and opens the question of whether homes should be taxed at all. A limit releases that pressure. A relief valve also keeps the boiler running.

The income tax amendment's sponsor, Sen. Michael Lee, pitches his measure as locking in progress. This one locks in the property tax.

Nevertheless, it is, in fact, a real limit on a real abuse, and it puts homeowners on firmer ground than they stand on today. In the humble opinion of your Communications Director, vote FOR this amendment.

Just remember, the fight doesn't end on Election Day. The number and the exceptions get written by the legislature after the vote, and "may include exceptions" is a door wide enough to drive a county budget through. And a slower increase was never the goal. The goal is a home you actually own.

Of all the proposed amendments, the thing that shines the brightest, or perhaps looms the darkest, are the amendments that aren’t there. North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature has, for years now, completely and utterly failed to override the veto of SB50, which would give North Carolinians the legal right to constitutional carry. Of course, bills can be overturned, while a constitutional amendment faces a higher bar to change, and is not subject to the whims of a hostile general assembly.

And, while we’re at it, nestled in the amendments that seek to restrict the government’s ability to steal your money through income and property tax is a lack of restrictions on government’s ability to spend money. It’s far past time to amend our constitution to include both constitutional carry and significant spending restrictions. Alas, that’s for another day.

by: Rob Yates, LPNC Communications Director

The "30th State Pledge"

Press Release on the 30th State Pledge

Let me give the North Carolina Republican Party its due, because it has some coming.

Credit where it's due, In March 2023, this same party did the hard thing. Governor Roy Cooper vetoed Senate Bill 41, which repealed North Carolina's pistol purchase permit — a 1919 statute that handed your county sheriff personal discretion over whether you were allowed to buy a handgun. Repeal advocates called it a Jim Crow law. A discretionary permit, in the South, in 1919, was a loaded instrument in the hands of whoever happened to be sheriff. Sheriffs continued to weaponize that power into this millennium, even to the point of being sued for their lack of responsiveness. The Senate overrode the veto on March 28. The House overrode it the next day, 71–46. Done. Law. The permit is gone and nobody has missed it.

So they can do it.

I started with that point, because the rest of this is not a story about a party that can't. It is a story about a party that won't.

What "Won't" Looks Like

Constitutional carry simply states that a law-abiding adult who can already legally own a handgun may carry it concealed without first buying a permit from the state and sitting through a state-approved class. Twenty-nine states have it. South Carolina has it. Georgia has it. Tennessee has it. North Carolina is the hole in the map, surrounded on three sides by the thingour own legislators keep promising to deliver.

Senate Bill 50 — "Freedom to Carry NC" — was filed on February 4, 2025, by Senators Danny Britt, Warren Daniel, and Eddie Settle, with nineteen more Republicans signing on as cosponsors. The Senate passed it 26–18 on March 20. The House passed it 59–48 on June 11.

Governor Josh Stein vetoed it on June 20. He did the thing a Democratic governor was always going to do, he told you in advance he would do it, and he did it on schedule. There is no betrayal in a man keeping his word to the people who elected him. We knew what we were getting with him, and there is zero utility in wasting more energy talking about it (y'all could've had Mike ROss). Put your disappointment somewhere it belongs.

The Senate overrode the veto 30–19 on July 29, 2025.

And then the House of Representatives — 71 Republicans, a chamber their party controls outright, with a Speaker their party elected — put the override on the calendar and quietly took it back off. Then did it again. And again. From August 26 to October 22, 2025, the bill was calendared and withdrawn over and over. By February 2026 the Wake Forest Law Review had counted nine scheduled override votes that never happened. On January 12, 2026, they punted to February 9. On April 6 they set it for April 21 and pulled it again. On August 10, 2026, Speaker Destin Hall told reporters, "Any bill that's on the calendar that has been vetoed, we intend to override at some point if we possibly can."

At some point. If we possibly can.

The Arithmetic is the Whole Story

Pull up the roll call from June 11, 2025. Fifty-nine ayes, forty-eight noes, and thirteen excused absences — ten of them Republicans.

Two Republicans voted no outright: Rep. William Brisson of Bladen County and Rep. Ted Davis Jr. of New Hanover County. Both are in their final terms. Neither is seeking reelection. Neither will ever stand in front of a voter again.

An override requires three-fifths of the members present and voting — not three-fifths of the chamber. Which means absence isn't neutral. Absence is currency. With Brisson and Davis voting no, the Republican ceiling is 69 ayes, and 69 only clears three-fifths if no more than 115 members cast a vote. Five Democrats have to be somewhere else that day.

Rep. Keith Kidwell, a Republican, says the real number of Republican holdouts is four, not two. That drops the ceiling to 67, and 67 only clears if nine Democrats are absent.

So the vote is hard. Fine. 

Kidwell went on record and said leadership won't schedule the vote before November because, "they're more worried about losing seats than they are about doing what's right."

That is a Republican legislator saying the quiet part into a microphone. Not the Governor's office. Not a Libertarian with a grudge and a Substack. A Republican, describing his own leadership's math out loud: a recorded vote on the Second Amendment is a liability in a purple district, and the seat is worth more than the promise.

Carolina Journal found that nine of the twelve Republicans who voted no or didn't vote at all represent competitive districts. That's not a scheduling accident. That's a strategy.

And it is the same strategy as 2023, when House Bill 189 — constitutional carry, same idea, different number — died in the Rules Committee without a vote, in a chamber Republicans controlled.

Two sessions. A bill carried by twenty-two Republican senators. One veto. One override in the Senate. Nine calendar entries in the House. Zero votes taken.

What you were sold

Go find your mail from 2024. Go find the door hanger, the text message, the Facebook ad with the flag and the rifle silhouette. Somewhere on it, in a font chosen by a consultant, it says defend the Second Amendment.

Nobody wrote defend the Second Amendment when the district is safe enough.

Here's what makes it worse: they're not even losing the argument. They're declining to have it. A recorded vote that fails is a position — it tells you who stood where, and it gives you something against which we can organize. Nine withdrawn calendar entries tell you nothing, by design. You cannot primary a man over a vote he made sure not to take.

The General Assembly can still act on this until December 31, 2026. Hall says they may come back after the election. Maybe they will. But a party that needed sixteen months and nine tries to not vote on its own signature bill has told you, in the only language politicians actually speak, exactly what the promise was worth.

So be specific

There is a version of this piece where I tell you to be angry. I'd rather tell you to be exact.

This November, seven Libertarians on the ballot for the North Carolina House signed the "30th State Pledge," the same short document, in public, with their name on it.

It commits them to support every bill that removes a barrier between a law-abiding adult and a firearm. It affirms the right the Second Amendment enumerates rather than grants. And it commits them to vote for constitutional carry in North Carolina — on the record, on the floor, present in the building.

It's one page. It takes ninety seconds to read.

We keep our promises. 

by: Dylan Allman

Most of you do not understand the turning point directly ahead.

People still talk like the danger is AI in the abstract. It isn’t. The danger is the merger, frontier models, the national security apparatus, and a government that now expects private companies to accept “any lawful use” or be punished.

Anthropic is no saint. It already pushed Claude deep into classified networks, intelligence work, operational planning, cyber operations, modeling and simulation. It bent almost all the way. It drew two lines, mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. For that, the government moved to blacklist them.

The government is building the precedent that if a company refuses to remove guardrails they want gone, they can threaten offboarding, threaten a “supply chain risk” label historically used against foreign adversaries, and make an example out of the holdout in public. Trump ordered federal agencies to stop using Anthropic. Hegseth announced the supply-chain-risk move. The Pentagon then formalized it.

This is a clear message to every other firm in the market, comply all the way or watch what happens to the last company that tried to keep even a sliver of restraint.

That is the mechanical shift most people still do not understand. AI does not need to become sentient to become tyrannical. It needs to become indispensable enough that the government treats every safeguard as sabotage, every limit as disloyalty, and every refusal as a supply-chain threat. Once that logic hardens, “lawful use” becomes the solvent that dissolves every boundary the minute power wants it dissolved.

Anthropic’s own dispute centered on mass domestic surveillance of Americans. That matters because the government can already buy or collect its own movement data, browsing data, and association data from brokers and public sources. Powerful AI is able to turn those scattered records into a full biography at machine speed.

This is tyranny by integration. Sensors, data brokers, cloud platforms, model providers, military demand, intelligence demand, legal elasticity, and political intimidation all snap together into one stack. Once that stack is in place, the government just has to make refusal costly enough that everyone learns the lesson.

That is why this moment matters.

Anthropic agreed to almost everything and still got targeted. Think about what that teaches the rest of the industry. The lesson is not “be responsible.” The lesson is “never draw a line the government might want to cross later.” OpenAI’s quick Pentagon deal illustrates exactly this. One company gets punished for keeping two narrow guardrails. Another steps into the opening. The market signal couldn’t be clearer: the safest path is maximum compliance with the war machine.

This is the formula now. The government gains capability, then demands access, then punishes hesitation, then calls that punishment national security. Contractors protect revenue. Politicians protect dominance. AI companies learn that their real product is obedience.

Power expands to fill the permissions you give it. A government that can blacklist an American AI company for refusing mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons is telling you exactly where this is going.

It is being wired now, and once the stack is complete, it will not ask your permission to be used.

Dylan Allman is a prolific writer and deep philosophical thinker in the Liberty movement. He writes for the Interlinked blog, and can be found on X/Twitter. 

by: Dr. Steven Feldman, LPNC Candidate for U.S. House, NC District 10

First Renee Good— a widowed mom, a writer and poet.  Now a veritable angel, nurse Alex Pretti. Gunned down on American streets by the government officers who are there to protect us. I watched several videos of both killings, from different angles, different speeds, and was deeply horrified and disgusted by this happening in our country. I'm not running as a Democrat or a Republican. I may conclude different things from what I saw than folks committed to one of those two sides.

It's my impression that people on one of those sides believe that “citizens have the right—maybe even the responsibility—to peacefully protest injustice" and that "law enforcement officers have the duty to follow the law and protect the public" while people on the other side feel strongly that "law enforcement officers have the duty to follow the law and protect the public" and “citizens have the right—maybe even the responsibility—to peacefully protest injustice.”  Yes, those are the same.  Americans on both sides of the issue share the same values, but they may prioritize those two values differently. Neither side is evil. Both sides abhor the killing of Americans. 

But how we perceive the killing is affected by what side we're on. The saying, "We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are," is something we need to consider when looking at controversial issues. People on each side, while sharing similar values but full of righteous indignation, spew vitriol toward each other.   Both sides vehemently blame the other without accepting any responsibility for their side's contribution to the environment that births these unholy tragedies.

Here's what I saw: Alex Pretti was filming federal agents—his legal right—but in the middle of the street. He stepped in to help a woman who had been shoved to the ground—an act of compassion— injecting himself into an altercation between the woman and an armed officer of the law. Pretti was a legal gun owner with a valid permit who never drew his weapon. Agents pepper-sprayed him, dragged him down, and an absolute melee ensued. Someone yelled "gun" as Pretti’s gun was seen. Less than 2 seconds later, an agent fired and fired, ending Pretti’s life, and fired some more. 

This was not a calm execution of a peaceful protester. It was not a justified shooting of a domestic terrorist. It was a tragedy born of chaos and a row of dominoes that goes back farther than either side may admit.  Claims made afterward by DHS officials—that Pretti "approached" agents with a gun, that he wanted to "massacre" officers, that he was a "domestic terrorist"—appear contradicted by the video evidence, just as are claims that this was an “execution.”   The shooting appears to me to be a tragic split-second horrific mistake.  The heated statements afterward are indefensible and add to the roiling boil.

Working together to prevent such violence isn't impossible; it’s what we all want. Law enforcement officers should be trained to de-escalate confrontations. Citizens—even those acting courageously—should understand that physically intervening in a confrontation with armed federal agents, especially while carrying a weapon, is extraordinarily dangerous. Bad things—very bad, very sad things—happen in the heat of the moment. We need to address underlying issues to avoid putting people in these positions and avert these terrible tragedies before they happen.

The contempt with which each side sees the other ("They are fascists executing civilians in our streets!" or "They are domestic terrorists trying to kill law enforcement officers!") doesn't resonate with me. The vitriol is exacerbating our culture of animosity—it is sowing the seeds of violence, now reaped in our streets. We need to tone down the toxic rhetoric, especially dehumanizing claims that each side throws around cavalierly. We need to consider the reasonable perspectives of people on both sides and use our vote to effect the changes we want to see.

If you’re looking to support politicians who are sure the officer who did the shooting is a murderer, or ones who claim the deceased is a terrorist who had it coming, look somewhere else. If you believe our country would be greater if we were more civil with, respectful of, and peaceful toward each other, please consider looking at my positions on the difficult issues we face—and how those positions can recognize the good intentions of both Democrats and Republicans.  You may find a breath of fresh air.

The approach of not denigrating one side or the other is not a fence-sitting plan to please all the voters. Au contraire! It is based on the absolute conviction that both sides consist of passionately good, caring people who perceive evil on the other side, and, therefore, a fair, even-handed tone may be seen by them as absolute betrayal. Despite that, this may be the message that they need to hear.  Help spread this message— gently, respectfully and courageously— to those who need to hear it.

Some thoughts on Iran, by: Dr. Steven Feldman, LPNC Candidate for U.S. House, NC District 10

The loss of innocent human life in Iran is heartbreaking and unconscionable. I find it hard to know with confidence precisely what is going on, the extent of the carnage and the factors that contribute to it.. Perhaps even harder is knowing what to do about it.

One description says an evil regime that cares nothing for its own people is slaughtering them, and we have to help take that regime out. That narrative doesn’t resonate with me, as I’ve become reticent when people tell me that some other group is evil. I’m convinced that for all its failures and mis-adventures, the Iranian leadership does care about their people. The regime even provides universal healthcare as best it can. I’m convinced our own government cares about other people, despite installing and supporting dictators in other countries (including the 1953 installation of the Shah in Iran), our use of nuclear weapons, and our support for Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons on Iranians (and I’m convinced our leaders care about us deeply, even though we don’t have universal healthcare).

Clearly, these protests started because of Iran’s economic collapse. U.S. sanctions played some role—though I cannot tell how large, possibly the defining role—in weakening the Iranian economy. Perhaps U.S. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian infrastructure in June 2025 precipitated sudden economic worsening. I do know that on my first visit to Iran I visited a Jewish synagogue in Isfahan and was told there that things were hard in Iran—not because of religious persecution but because the economy had deteriorated under U.S. sanctions. Since then the sanctions have grown far tighter and the suffering of Iranian people much worse.

In addition to protesters, many Iranian security forces were killed (despite tight gun control in Iran). Israel’s Channel 14 reported that “outside forces” have provided arms that contributed to the deaths of the Iranian regime’s people (https://x.com/Tamir114/status/2011143415116021898). Israel Mossad claimed to have operatives in Iran (https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-881733). Could the U.S. and others be trying, out of the best intentions, to overthrow the current government? Do we, in small or large part, have some responsibility for the deaths that are occurring?

I’ve been to Iran a couple times. I have Persian friends. They are a wonderful, peaceful, brilliant people proud of their millennia-old commitment to human rights. We should be their friends, given our shared commitment to human rights. We have a picture of genocidal Andrew Jackson on our $20 bill; they put their love poets on their money. I have the sense that most of us have a very unrepresentative picture of the Iranian people in our minds.

Let’s end all sanctions on Iran so that we bear no responsibility for the suffering of Iranian people that lead to protests that lead to deaths. Let’s stop trying to tell people how to run their countries, especially when we do so out of our addiction to their oil. We installed a dictator in their country in the 1950’s and supported his dreaded secret police; let’s not do that again. Let’s follow the Golden Rule and treat others the way we would want to be treated. As Jefferson said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations.” With the way we treat them, it's no wonder they might want a nuclear deterrent. We seem to think we need one, and we haven't suffered from others nearly as much as Iranians have suffered because of us. All of us are deeply cut by the suffering we see in Iran. Maybe, just maybe, the best way we can address it is by approaching the world with greater humility and by making our own country a model of peace and economic success that others would seek to emulate.

by: Dr. Steven Feldman, LPNC Candidate for U.S. House NC District 10

I'm Steve Feldman, your Libertarian candidate for Congress in North Carolina's 10th District. I want to talk about our recent military action in Venezuela—not to score partisan points, but to illustrate something I believe deeply: in politics, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. And honest people can disagree about which trade-offs are acceptable.

Taking the Other Side Seriously

Before I explain my concerns about invading Venezuela, let me do something unusual in politics: I'm going to make the strongest case I can for the intervention.

Nicolás Maduro’s regime murdered and tortured many of its own citizens. Millions of Venezuelans fled, including many to North Carolina, because staying meant starvation or persecution. The humanitarian crisis was real, and it was ongoing (and our sanctions on their economy may have contributed to the suffering).

The U.S. administration argues that taking Maduro out will stabilize the region, reduce the flow of migrants, disrupt drug trafficking networks that have devastated American communities (including right here in our state, from Asheville's recovery centers to Raleigh's suburbs), and secure energy resources that reduce our dependence on hostile nations. These goals reflect genuine concerns about American security and prosperity.

People who support this intervention aren't villains. They're Americans who looked at a brutal dictator, looked at the suffering of the Venezuelan people, considered possible advantages to the American people, not the least of which is oil, and concluded that doing nothing was morally unacceptable. I understand that impulse. I respect it.

The Case for Restraint

And yet, I oppose this intervention.

First, the constitutional question. The power to declare war belongs to Congress, not the president. Calling this a "police action" or "law enforcement operation" doesn't change what it is: a military strike on a sovereign nation to remove its head of state. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 permits presidential military action only in response to an attack on us. Venezuela didn't attack us. Whatever we think of Maduro, we should want our government to follow our laws.

Second, the precedent. When we claim it’s ok to invade nations whose leaders we find objectionable, our moral standing against similar action by other countries weakens. Just as we should not constrain the speech of others if we don’t want our speech to be restricted, we should not engage in foreign interventions that we would not want others to take. 

Third, history. I genuinely hope this works out for the Venezuelan people. We all do.  But hope is not a strategy, and the track record on regime change is sobering. Vietnam. Iran. Libya. Afghanistan. Iraq. Initial military action may be quick but followed by decades of instability, trillions in costs, and thousands of American lives lost, and hundreds of thousands of local lives lost. Twenty-two years after Iraq, even those who supported that invasion acknowledge the outcome was far from what we were promised.

An Independent Perspective

I’m troubled by the hypocrisy that can arise when we see things from a tribal perspective.  Some people who opposed regime change under Bush flipped to supporting it under Obama and flipped again under Trump. Some Democrats who pushed for Maduro's ouster suddenly cried foul because Trump pulled the trigger. Some MAGA supporters who decried "forever wars" cheer this one.

This isn't a left-right problem. It's a tribal problem. We should seriously ask, “Is this the best policy?”—anticipating unintended consequences—and not reflexively follow what our team supports.  We should strive for an independent perspective and attempt to understand the perspectives of those with whom we disagree.  The intervention supporters aren't warmongers. The intervention opponents aren't naive. Both sides are responding to real concerns with real arguments that have real trade-offs. A serious citizen should be able to articulate both positions—and then explain, honestly, which trade-offs they find acceptable and why.

What I Would Work Toward

As your representative, I would work to restore Congress's constitutional authority over war. I would push to reduce military spending and foreign adventures and focus on securing our homeland. We should insist that before we send anyone's son or daughter into harm's way, we have a clear objective, a realistic plan, and an honest assessment of what could go wrong.  But I’d like us to go even further and not send our children into harm’s way in the first place.  It’s better to seek peace around the world through peaceful collaboration, not violence.

This isn't isolationism. It's humility. It's recognizing that people everywhere are people who deserve to follow their own paths, that our power has limits, and that our good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes.  A Libertarian perspective respects the rights and responsibilities of others.  We shouldn’t try to force our choice of government on Venezuela.  Venezuelans need to be responsible for their own government.  If our goal is to help their people, ending our sanctions on their economy would reduce their suffering; this would help us, too, as it would reduce the number of Venezuelans fleeing and the resulting immigration pressure on our border.  And we could do a lot more to help people south of our border if we solve our own drug demand problem; decriminalization may be an important part of that solution.  Thomas Jefferson’s "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations" would be a good rule to follow.

The people of Venezuela deserve freedom and prosperity. So do the people of North Carolina. I believe we can pursue both by being honest about trade-offs, skeptical of quick-fix violent answers, and humble about what we don't know.

People are just people—Venezuelans, Americans, Republicans, Democrats. We share common values. All of us want a better world. We should talk to each other honestly about how to build one.

by: Cassie Clark

In late September, I had the chance to attend the Salt & Light Conference with a press pass.

For those of you who aren’t familiar, the Salt & Light Conference is North Carolina’s largest faith-based policy event, hosted each year by the NC Faith & Freedom Coalition in Marion. It brings together conservative Christian leaders, thinkers, and advocates from across the state — and beyond — to connect, learn, and find inspiration from dynamic speakers.

The conference takes its name straight from Matthew 5:13–16, where Christians are called to be “salt” and “light” in the world — preserving what’s good and shining truth into dark places. The goal is simple but powerful: to encourage believers to live out their faith boldly, to step into the conversations shaping our culture, and to do it with both conviction and grace.

Culture? That’s my wheelhouse. It’s what I’ve dedicated the last four years of my life to — not the trendy kind that fades with hashtags and hype, but the deep-rooted kind. The kind that connects us to each other and to the places we come from. The kind that tells us who we are and why it matters.

Still, I’ll admit — I was apprehensive walking in.

I’m a Christian, albeit not a perfect one. I have a strong relationship with Jesus, but I cuss a lot. I drink moonshine. I’ve been known to let my temper get the best of me.

I tell people I’ll probably end up on the south side of heaven. It’s mostly a joke — but like most jokes, there’s a bit of truth in it. Yes, I’m opposed to sin. Yes, I try to do better every day. But I also know I’m human, and grace is real. I don’t beat myself up for being imperfect, and I don’t judge others who love Jesus but fall short sometimes, too.

I’m a conservative as well — but not a Republican. The best way to describe me is a constitutional conservative, someonewho believes in a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution.

In my mind, that’s what the Republican Party used to stand for, or at least what it was meant to. These days, I find myself asking: what exactly are we conserving?  Shouldn’t conservatives be the ones preserving history, protecting the land, and defending small-town ways of life? Shouldn’t we be the ones standing up for local culture and old traditions before they’re gone for good?

And as a Christian, I don’t believe religion should dictate federal policy — but on the state level, I do believe people have the right to determine how their faith shapes their laws and communities. That’s part of the balance between freedom and responsibility our founders envisioned.

Depending on the issue, I might lean a little more libertarian — or even a touch more liberal — than most folks expect.

So, as I packed up my microphones, laptop, and gimbal, I couldn’t help but wonder: how would someone like me be received?

To make matters worse, I knew I was underprepared. I’d never sat on media row before, and I wasn’t sure what that would even look like. I was about to get a crash course in professional press coverage — and my amateur setup was bound to stand out. My folding table looked bare compared to the slick banners and branded backdrops around me. I didn’t bring flyers or stickers or even a display sign for Where the Dogwood Blooms. Just business cards and a prayer.

It felt like all the cards were stacked against me.

But that wasn’t what happened.

Sure, there were protesters standing at the entrance. They held up signs and shouted about the “true” meaning of Christianity, but even they smiled and waved when we pulled in — and again when we left.

And yes, I made mistakes. I set up in a spot with way too much background noise. I didn’t think about lighting or camera placement. My interview angles were awkward, and my tripod nearly toppled twice.

But none of that mattered.

From the moment I walked through the doors of Nebo Crossing Church, I was met with genuine warmth. The conference drew more than 2,000 people this year — pastors, activists, elected officials, and everyday believers — yet somehow, it still felt like a small community. There was a hum of optimism in every hallway. People hugged like old friends, even if they’d only met online.

And to my surprise, I wasn’t as politically out of place as I’d feared. I met other constitutional conservatives — and more libertarians than I ever expected. We talked about faith, family, and freedom, but also about farming, land preservation, and the importance of keeping local traditions alive. Those conversations reminded me that political identity doesn’t have to fit neatly into one party line.

Over the weekend, I listened to nationally recognized speakers and local voices alike. Big names like Shawn Hendrix, Adam Smith, and Greg Biffle shared the stage with pastors and grassroots leaders who spoke from the heart. The focus wasn’t just politics — it was purpose. Faith in action.

And Greg Biffle? OMG — the nicest guy in the world. I cried when he sat down during a roundtable discussion to talkabout Hurricane Helene. I was so nervous afterward that I couldn’t bring myself to ask for an interview, but I did work up the courage to ask for a photo.

There were other moments that caught me off guard, too. A few times, people recognized me — not as a reporter, but as me. They came up to hug me or tell me how much they appreciated what I do. I’ll be honest: sometimes I forget that my platform actually reaches people, that it makes a difference. Hearing that reminded me why I started all this in the first place.

One pastor spoke about our duty to serve our communities, and that hit me right in the chest. I’m a proud WNC hillbilly, and after Helene, I’ll never let another disaster strike without rolling up my sleeves and getting my hands dirty.

By Saturday afternoon, the sanctuary was buzzing with energy. Folks exchanged business cards and ideas, prayed together in corners, and laughed over barbecue in the fellowship hall. It was like a revival and a town hall rolled into one — equal parts policy and praise.

What struck me most wasn’t the political alignment. It was the sincerity. These were people who cared deeply — about their country, their faith, and their neighbors. Whether we agreed on every issue didn’t matter as much as the fact that we were all showing up.

By the time Sunday rolled around and I started packing up my gear, something inside me had shifted.

I came to the Salt & Light Conference expecting formality and rigidity — a crowd that might not have patience for someone like me, who straddles the line between conservative and contrarian.

Instead, I found warmth. I found people willing to listen, to debate respectfully, and to pray together anyway. I found that faith and conviction don’t have to divide us — not if we lead with grace.

When I pulled out of Marion that afternoon, the foothills fading in the rearview, I realized I hadn’t just covered a conference. I’d been reminded of what it means to be salt and light myself — imperfect, human, but still shining the best I can in my own little corner of the world.

And maybe even more important than that was the realization that people — with all our varied views, quirks, and convictions — can still come together, united in the simple goal of making the world a better, freer place.

by: Susan Hogarth

Programs like SNAP, intended to provide a safety net for the nation’s most vulnerable, have devolved into political footballs, kicked around Capitol Hill during budget battles, shutdowns, and debt ceiling standoffs, with the poor held hostage to partisan brinkmanship. 

In the ongoing 2025 government shutdown drama, for instance, SNAP funding - vital for over 40 million low-income Americans - faces a cliff on November 1, as Democrats and Republicans deadlock over spending priorities, leaving families to ration dwindling benefits while lawmakers grandstand for media points, and the more despicable political operatives hope for riots in order to create more ‘crisis’ for government to ‘solve’ by violence. 

From a libertarian POV, this spectacle exposes the perils of centralized welfare: programs ballooned by coercive taxation become tools for politicians to manufacture crises, fostering dependency rather than empowerment and eroding voluntary community support.

True compassion lies in devolving aid to local charities and markets, free from federal puppetry, where donors and recipients connect without making the needy into pawns in endless political theater.

But there is opportunity in adversity: Private philanthropy has long proven more effective than coercive government ‘charity’, with food banks distributing meals at fractions of government costs - often 10 cents per pound versus SNAP’s administrative overhead exceeding 5%. This is an opportunity for private giving to step in and prove its efficiency and compassion. 

Regardless of what happens in the next week, libertarians, free-market enthusiasts, and all decent people who can afford to help ought to donate immediately to local food banks. Food items are always welcome, but the best support we can give is often a cash contribution. A $50 contribution can provide up to 40 meals. Please step up to help your neighbors.

InFocus: Addressing the assassination of Charlie Kirk

From Dr. Dan's Freedom Forum

On behalf of Forward Observer, our prayers and support goes out to Charlie’s family. Probably like you, we’re working through complex emotions (initial disbelief followed by sadness and then anger) over yesterday’s murder of conservative commentator and political youth leader Charlie Kirk. As always after a national tragedy, take time to process grief and talk with others.

“What’s next?” is the intelligence question of the day. I’m working my way through this question and want to share my thought process with you. 

First, I agree with much of the sentiment that “there’s no coming back from this.” It makes future political violence more likely, and there’s a good chance that it makes some political candidates targets in 2026. And, yes, I do believe that the United States remains on trajectory towards a domestic armed conflict.

The lead up to sustained violence in low intensity conflict (the outbreak) consists of three factors. (1) Fault lines are divides or tears in the social fabric. They can be political or ideological, racial, religious, socioeconomic, etc. These are the tectonic plates of low intensity conflict. (2) Next are accelerators, which turn up the social temperature by agitating or exploiting existing grievances. Accelerators of conflict heat up a pot of water that eventually, when hot enough, boils over. Or, in another analogy, shifting tectonic plates produce tremors. (3) The third factor is the trigger event, where so much pressure is built up in the social system that sustained violence erupts. This is the earthquake or pot of water that boils over.

As of this morning, I don’t think enough pressure is built up to have an eruption of armed violence, so the murder of Charlie Kirk is more likely an accelerator than a trigger. Low level armed violence remains likely, however. I say this with one caveat, below.

Second, I’ve seen the email received by conservative commentator Stephen Crowder, allegedly from an ATF agent, showing that the shooter harbored pro-trans and anti-fascist ideology. A screenshot of an internal message alleging that law enforcement recovered a Mauser .30-06 rifle and rifle rounds engraved with “transgender and anti-fascist” messages. [source]

The veracity of this information is unknown, but it would not surprise me. It would be consistent with expectations. This is the most credible theory I’ve seen so far, although I encourage everyone to wait for the facts to come out. This is a single source report, which is inherently vulnerable. As always, we have considered multiple alternatives.

Third, if this report is verified, then we will see renewed national backlash against transgender ideology. The Department of Homeland Security or Federal Bureau of Investigation could designate a special category for transgender violent extremism, while the Department of Justice recalibrates their focus to left wing extremism. This should bring new political, social, and medical scrutiny, in addition to law enforcement attention.

Lastly, yesterday’s shooting and the risk of continued armed political violence underscores the need for intelligence and organization at the local level. I encourage you to investigate local political and social groups, especially those with alternative or extremist ideologies, or those that agitate around social issues that could produce political violence. Your goal is to gain awareness that these groups exist and determine the risk of localized violence. 

I also encourage you to organize with like-minded community members and share information. It’s not inconceivable that under the right social conditions, we see organized political violence targeting provocative or unpopular political candidates in next year’s elections. On that note, it’s probably worth asking your county sheriff or police chief, in light of yesterday’s shooting and the potential fallout, how they’re preparing for possible armed political violence in the next election cycle.

Meanwhile, the Early Warning team will continue to stay on top of developments and provide our updated assessments in future reports. 

Dr. Dan's Freedom Forum

Contact

North Carolina State Board of Elections is attempting to create new rules that will severely handicap the petition process in North Carolina for new parties. If you would like to read these rules, you can find them here: https://www.ncsbe.gov/about-elections/legal-resources/rulemaking#petition

These rules essentially just codify the shenanigans that the last board tried in 2022 and 2024 to keep non-uniparty parties off the ballot. If you would like to object to these rules, you can send proposed rule objections to [email protected] AND [email protected].

You can use the letter template below, and edit as you see fit.

[Name]

[Address]

[Date]

N.C. Rules Review Commission

1711 New Hope Church Rd.

Raleigh, NC  27609

Re: [08 NCAC 22 .0105 PETITION CIRCULATORS,
08 NCAC 22 .0305 GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE NEW PARTY, ]

Members of the Commission:

I request that the above rule(s) be reviewed in the upcoming legislative session as set out in N.C.G.S. 150B-21.3. I further request that the rule(s) be subject to a delayed effective date as set out in that same provision.

I am objecting to:

08 NCAC 22 .0104 (C). This goes far and above current law and it will take much longer to petition. The intent of all political parties is understood to be to run and elect candidates to office and influence law.

08 NCAC 22 .0105 PETITION CIRCULATORS. This is a violation of an individual’s First Amendment rights, and it also places a new party at a disadvantage by making public a list of its volunteers. In addition, it will make it much more difficult to circulate a petition, as multiple individuals won’t be able to circulate the same petition sheet. This creates a particular challenge when working a multi-person event where multiple counties attend.

08 NCAC 22 .0305 GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE NEW PARTY. This rule is confusing and sets up a situation where members of the two major parties can choose to keep a small party from ever satisfying this requirement. The state board is very vague with this rule as to what it will accept and not accept. further, the state board has extreme power to arbitrarily determine if it agrees with what the party has done or said to meet the requirement of general purpose and intent. This part of NC law is old and outdated and was meant to stop the spread of the Communist party and communism in America as I understand its history.

Furthermore, Multiple Parties have begun their petition drives and changing the rules in the middle of their drives is unfair to those parties. 

[INSERT ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS HERE IF NECESSARY, OR EDIT THE ABOVE AS YOU SEE FIT]

Thank you for your consideration.

[Name]