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]

We Have Finally Released the Massie

by: Rob Yates, LPNC aka Someone Who Can Still Read a Voting Record

There comes a time, rare and redemptive, when history’s grimiest mechanics produce a thing of gleaming precision. When a blundering force — chaotic, self-interested, and allergic to reading — smashes around long enough to break the machinery of its own movement and, unintentionally, set free a purer form. Such is the paradoxical gift of Donald J. Trump to the American Liberty movement. His utter contempt for all things Liberty has given us, in final boss form, fully activated Thomas Massie.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Trump. Thank you for lurching into the “conservative” movement like a roided-up wrestler crashing a chess tournament (or a billionaire real estate developer lurking in the dressing area of a teen beauty pageant). Thank you for cosplaying as the anti-establishment savior while embracing a gold-plated cocktail of corporate and special interest subsidies, dystopian surveillance initiatives, a personal gestapo army unfettered by Fourth Amendment concerns, a real-life “Where’s Waldo?” with the Epstein files, and a pandemic-era welfare statism that would have made FDR blush. Thank you, because without your clownish reign of narcissistic whack-a-mole governing, we might never have seen the awesome, unifying power of a true Liberty warrior in Congress.

Thank you, Donald Trump, you have finally released the Massie. And he is magnificent.

The Accidental Awakening

Thomas Massie — MIT engineer, Kentucky homesteader, constitutionalist in Birkenstocks — has always been a bit of a glitch in the GOP matrix. Since arriving in Congress in 2012, he has consistently annoyed the leadership by *gasp* reading bills, refusing to vote for wars wrapped in flag-drenched platitudes, and rejecting the bipartisan consensus that the debt ceiling is a polite fiction. He doesn’t think the FBI should be able to spy on you without a warrant, but he does think you have a right to defend yourself. He likes fiscal responsibility and hates the debt. He is not bought and sold by any foreign government but he does drink raw milk. He is, in short, what the Republican Party pretends to be every two years but flees from every day in between.

But under Trump, something changed. The quiet gadfly became a gadfly with a flamethrower. The engineer shed the politeness of the freshman and stepped into the fire as a fully operational Liberty warrior. And for that, we owe Trump. Trumpism — that deranged stew of nationalism, militarism, cronyism, and barstool conspiracy — never had much to do with Liberty. Its relationship to the Constitution was that of a raccoon to a vending machine – he ain’t paying it much more attention than a quick shake to see if there is something useful. But in infecting the Republican Party with this gibberish, Trump forced the few remaining Liberty-minded Republicans to choose: bend the knee, or be deemed a traitor and prepare to fight.

Massie chose the latter.

Holding the King Accountable

We knew something was different in March 2020, when Massie dared to oppose the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, and subsequent payouts. That COVID-era monstrosity, negotiated behind closed doors by Mitch “freeze frame” McConnell and blessed by Trump with his signature Sharpie flourish, was the largest corporate-welfare slush fund in American history, and the kickstarter for the runaway inflation that is ruining everyone’s bank accounts today. It was everything Liberty is not: opaque, panicked, massive, and tailored for the politically connected.

Massie, alone in the House chamber as everyone else phoned it in from their yachts and ski lodges, demanded a recorded vote. Trump, ever allergic to scrutiny and terrified of looking cheap in an election year, called for Massie to be kicked out of the Republican Party. “A third-rate Grandstander,” Trump tweeted, proving once again that projection isn’t just a cinematic technique.

But Massie stood firm. He called it what it was: theft. Theft from future taxpayers. Theft in the name of emergency. Theft dressed up in red, white, and fear. It was his John Brown moment — the lone man at the arsenal, lighting the match, refusing to apologize.

And what a beautiful fire it’s become.

The Engineer Builds Resistance

Since then, Massie has not just held the line; he’s laid new track. One with principles. One that remembers the word “Liberty” isn’t just a bumper sticker but a philosophy.

He voted against sending $100 billion to Ukraine, not because he’s pro-Putin (the lazy slander of warmongers), but because he understands that Liberty at home dies by imperialism abroad. He voted against every extension of the PATRIOT Act, even as Trump’s DOJ weaponized surveillance powers while claiming to “drain the swamp,” and Trump’s fluffer (look it up) Mike Johnson cowered like a baby deer in the face of a little pressure.

Oh, and let’s not forget: Massie has the gall — the unpardonable, unpurchasable gall — to file actual legislation. Not just commemorative resolutions for "National Golf Cart Safety Month" like most of his colleagues. But real bills, with words and consequences. Bills to audit the Fed, to cut the IRS, to force constitutional debates about war. Bills that scare appropriators, bureaucrats, and donors alike.

Massie has introduced bills to abolish the Department of Education, slash the defense budget, and eliminate vaccine mandates for soldiers — all while Trump was cheering police crackdowns, celebrating school lockdowns, and bragging about warp-speed jabs like a pharmaceutical Santa Claus.

The Hypocrisy Patrol

Meanwhile, what of the Republican “base”? You know, the ones who held spontaneous Constitutional revivals when Obama issued executive orders, but now chant “We love Trump!” as he declares that presidents and police should have “total immunity.”

Where are the small-government Tea Partiers now that Trump has ballooned the national debt by nearly $8 trillion, expanded tariffs like a protectionist drunk, and pushed a set of leftist policies straight out of Ted Kennedy’s 1994 playbook? Where are the “Patriots” when Trump praises Viktor Orbán, proposes ICE need respect neither the Fourth Amendment nor due process, and fires administrative staff for giving him bad news?

Crickets. Spangled, flag-waving crickets, interrupted only by shouts of “Trust the plan!” and squeals of glee as another US citizen is assaulted for having the audacity to be of Hispanic descent.

Massie, however, keeps calling it out. When Trump endorsed Red Flag laws — “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” demanded Fuhrer Trump — Massie objected, forcefully. When Trump issued executive orders banning bump stocks — a constitutional abomination — Massie filed bills to repeal them. When Republicans pushed surveillance reauthorization through Congress like it was a spending bill for their special interests (spoiler: it was), Massie said no, again and again. When Republicans took Biden’s budget, added some spending, renamed it the “Big Beautiful Bill,” and demanded obeisance – Massie politely extended his middle finger. And when Trump and his bimbo Bondi took us on the roller coaster ride of “we will release the Epstein files,” to “the Epstein files are on my desk,” to “these influencers have the Epstein files in a binder at the White House,” to “there are no Epstein files,” to “maybe there are files, but the Democrats snuck Trumps name in there to finally get him” – Massie filed a bill demanding they be released. Mike “Trump fluffer” Johnson responded by recessing Congress early to make sure it wouldn’t go to a vote.

Massie’s not just standing up to Trump. He’s standing up to the idea that the United States will tolerate a king. He’s standing up to corruption, big money, powerful special interests, and the entire machine. Thomas Massie is reminding us that Liberty matters, and it is worth defending.

The Irony Is the Point

Donald Trump is our first WWE character president, but, amidst the wreckage of that populist burlesque, Massie is quietly rebuilding. Not with slogans or merch drops, but with votes. With principles. With the courage to say no.

He is the Ron Paul of our time, minus the newsletters and plus a Twitter account that somehow makes farm chores and budgetary amendments cool.

Trump wanted obedience. Massie offers resistance.

Trump demanded loyalty. Massie gives truth.

Trump bellowed, “Only I can fix it.” Massie replies, “That’s not how Liberty works.”

An Example to Follow

And so here we are. The most anti-Liberty Republican president in modern history has, through sheer buffoonery, birthed the most principled Liberty legislator of the post-Ron Paul era. And in that delicious irony, one might almost detect the ghost of the republic whispering, “All is not yet lost.” Thomas Massie is not a savior, but he doesn’t want to be. He is a trendsetter, giving us all an example to follow.

Thomas Massie is the country’s conscience Donald Trump accidentally summoned.

He is the glitch in the Matrix. The engineer who saw through the system. The farmer who smelled the fertilizer of both parties. And now, unbound, he is harvesting something rare: integrity.

So yes. Thank you, Donald Trump.

We have finally released the Massie.

And may God help you when he gets to committee markup.

by: Rob Yates, LPNC Communications Director

On August 7, 2022, Brian Turner and his wife Kerri got into an argument. There was nothing special about the argument, they said not-so-nice things to each other in elevated voices, it never turned physical, and the point of contention was not extraordinary. In fact, the most unique thing about their argument was that they went outside to continue it so as not to wake their children.

Kerri left the house to walk and clear her head, while Brian stayed at home with their two daughters. The story should’ve ended then, with a husband and wife calming down and making up later in the day. Instead, this relatively minor incident marked the beginning of another state-sponsored episode of “we don’t respect your rights.”

Brian and Kerri had argued before, not with any unusual frequency or intensity, but from time to time, like many couples do. As is the case in many normal relationships, they shared mostly good times, worked through their issues, and built a family together. In the months leading up to the event, though, Brian and Kerri had noticed a marked uptick in scrutiny from their Gibsonville neighbors and law enforcement (why this happened is speculative and beyond the scope of this story, but it is pertinent that it happened).

Regardless of why it was happening, it was against this backdrop of all-of-a-suddenly increased visits from neighbors and cops (all documented on home security cameras) that the Turner’s recent nightmare began.

Brian went looking for Kerri later in the evening that August 7, as her walk to cool down had stretched into several hours, and he was concerned. He asked a neighbor to keep an eye on his children and went to search for his wife. He checked a local park, where he encountered Officer William Brennan for the first time.

The first encounter was peaceful and cordial. Brian acknowledged that he had argued with Kerri earlier, and was out looking for her. He wondered if Officer Brennan had seen her. Brennan had not, and they parted ways. Brian continued his search, assuming that was the end of his interactions with police for the day. Officer Brennan had other ideas, and followed Brian back to his house, suspecting that Brian was the subject of a complaint call the department had received earlier – a call which was potentially linked to the increased scrutiny Brian and Kerri had received in recent months.

Once back in the driveway of Brian’s home, Officer Brennan exited his car, and aggressively went to physically detain Brian. The scene was chaotic. Brian’s dog was barking on the porch, and Officer Brennan did, admirably, allow Brian to put the dog in his house. Brian’s daughter Ariel was also on the porch, screaming hysterically at the sight of her father being assaulted by a police officer. Officer Brennan escalated the situation quickly, though, screaming, cussing, threatening to use his taser, and demanding Brian’s compliance, all over a “verbal domestic,” referencing the normal argument that the couple had earlier. Ultimately, Brian was put in cuffs and placed in the back of a cop car.

Shortly after, Kerri returned home, and confirmed that she and her husband had argued, it was not physical, and everything was OK. Officer Brennan decided Brian was a violent criminal, though, and he arrested Brian for Misdemeanor Assault on an LEO, Resist Delay and Obstruct, and Misdemeanor Child Abuse, because why not, go big or go home.

In a just country, Brian would’ve been released the evening of October 7 with an apology and no charges. Instead, Brian went to jail, where cops repeatedly stated that he was belligerent and unruly, on video and on the police report, for the way he acted when being arrested after committing no discernible crime. Ultimately, Brian would plead guilty to obstruction.

The United States exists based on a few simple premises, one of which is equal protection under the law. No matter what anyone in Alamance County thinks personally of Brian Turner, he is entitled to the same rights as every other person in this country. These rights include protection from unreasonable search and seizure, security in one’s person and home, and the right to redress grievances against the police with no fear of retaliation.

As Brian’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by his arrest, he attempted to exercise his First Amendment rights to rectify the situation. Brian made his appeals through the NC court system. He hired a lawyer, who failed to deliver. It was later discovered that the lawyer was connected through family to the Police Chief. Brian filed an appeal to the NC BAR association, which was denied.

Brian shared his videos and images from the arrest and subsequent documents and communications on social media. He took his concerns in front of his local government. For this, he was called a “clown” and motions were made to prevent him from doing anything further. In fact, Brian Turner was trespassed from public property in the Town of Gibsonville, North Carolina, making it illegal for him to watch his daughters play soccer at his local park.

Brian has followed every prescribed remedy, filed every available bit of paperwork, gone through every motion, and done every other thing he was told trying to find justice, or at least closure, for his wrongful arrest and prosecution. As a reward, he has faced increased harassment from his neighbors, denials of every legal remedy he has attempted, and dead ends at all available public outlets.

In fact, Brian is now facing the possibility of jail time for speaking up about what happened to him. There are more grainy, sordid details that certainly suggest an “old boy” system is in place that protects itself through the connections of the people running it, one of many examples of the system working to protect itself and defend the rights of the people it is supposed to serve.

Brian Turner was arrested for a crime that was never committed. The system doesn’t get to pick and choose who it arrests, and why, because the people running the system are annoyed, or don’t like someone. Brian Turner deserves justice, and, until he and everyone like him gets a fair shake, we will never actually be free.

Libertarian Outreach to Arab and Islamic Communities in North Carolina

by: Phil Jacobson and Wael Masri

Arab and Islamic communities have deep roots in both the original cultures from which they draw their identities as well as North Carolina’s broad cultural mosaic. Bound by shared cultural, religious, and entrepreneurial ties, these communities are becoming increasingly politically active, particularly in light of the ongoing crisis in Palestine, yet remain politically underserved. Socialist groups have sought to align themselves with the cause of Palestinian human rights; however, t. contrary to the socialist narrative, these groups are not inherently drawn to collectivist ideologies. In fact, their values, experiences, and aspirations align far more closely with libertarian principles—individual liberty, free markets, and non-aggression. There is a profound opportunity for libertarians to step forward and build bridges with Arab and Islamic communities in North Carolina.

A Community of Entrepreneurs, Not Socialists

A striking characteristic of Arab and Islamic communities in North Carolina is their entrepreneurial spirit. From small grocery stores and restaurants to tech startups and professional services, many members of these communities are deeply invested in private enterprise. This economic independence fosters a natural appreciation for free markets, individual initiative, and limited government intervention—core tenets of libertarianism. Unlike socialist groups that advocate for heavy-handed state control, these communities understand the value of self-reliance and the power of voluntary exchange.

Arab-Americans, particularly those with roots in the Eastern Mediterranean, trace their heritage back to the ancient Phoenicians—renowned seafaring traders who pioneered international commerce and innovation. This legacy of economic freedom and self-determination continues to shape the values of Arab and Islamic communities today.

Moreover, their experiences in North America have shown that they are more likely to collaborate with other religious groups—such as Jewish communities advocating for Kosher standards or religious education—than with secular socialists who often oppose such freedoms. This alignment on issues of religious liberty, educational choice, and cultural autonomy underscores a shared commitment to individual rights and voluntary cooperation, rather than top-down mandates.

Escaping Authoritarianism, Embracing Liberty

Many members of these communities have fled authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and South Asia, seeking refuge in the United States precisely because of its promise of freedom and opportunity. Having experienced the oppressive nature of centralized power, they are deeply skeptical of authoritarian solutions, whether in the form of socialism or fascism. This makes them unlikely allies for socialist movements, despite the latter’s attempts to co-opt their causes.

Libertarians, on the other hand, can offer a compelling alternative: a vision of society rooted in individual liberty, free markets, and non-aggression. By emphasizing personal freedom, property rights, and voluntary association, libertarian messaging can resonate with these communities in ways that socialists can never replicate.

A Natural Fit: Non-Interventionism

One of the most compelling areas of alignment between Arab and Muslim-Americans and the Libertarian Party is the principle of non-interventionism. This principle, deeply rooted in libertarian philosophy, advocates for a foreign policy that prioritizes peace, diplomacy, and respect for the sovereignty of all nations. It stands in stark contrast to the interventionist policies that have characterized much of U.S. foreign policy in recent decades, particularly in the Middle East.

Many members of Arab and Muslim-American communities have firsthand experience with the devastating consequences of U.S. interventionism, especially those who come from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestine.  Gaza is part of Palestine, which is culturally and religiously central to Arabs and Muslims, and it’s still suffering from the ongoing Israeli military action inflicted upon them with the complicity of the US government.  A central tenet of libertarianism is that the means do not justify the ends, and Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch explains in this interview that the genocide in Gaza is being carried out as a means (rather than as an intrinsic end, though various Israeli political leaders have called for it) to depopulate the area from its indigenous Palestinians and to make the area unlivable for them (hence the mass destruction of hospitals, home, and all civilian infrastructure).  While it is natural for some readers to want to reject the label of genocide there, that term has been accepted by leading international scholars on this topic, including Israeli professors of the Holocaust, as well as by governments around the world.

U.S. military engagements exacerbate instability, fuel anti-American sentiment, and displace millions of people. These interventions have not only failed to achieve their stated goals but have also created a legacy of distrust and resentment among the populations affected.

Libertarian icon Dr. Ron Paul, congressman and three-time presidential candidate, has been a vocal critic of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East. In his speeches and writings, Dr. Paul consistently argued that such interventions are not only morally wrong but also counterproductive. During his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, he highlighted the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy, including the rise of extremist groups and the erosion of civil liberties at home. Arab and Muslim-Americans are acutely aware of the human and economic costs of interventionism, making them natural proponents of a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy, trade, and non-aggression.

The Libertarian Party’s commitment to non-interventionism offers a refreshing alternative to the imperialist agendas of both the Democratic and Republican parties. By advocating for a foreign policy that respects the sovereignty of all nations and avoids entangling alliances, libertarians can appeal to Arab and Muslim-Americans who are disillusioned with the bipartisan consensus on endless wars.

The Current Void: Libertarian Absence in Political Discourse

Despite the natural alignment between libertarian ideals and the values of Arab and Islamic communities, libertarian voices have been conspicuously absent from the political discourse surrounding issues like the crisis in Palestine. At rallies and marches, socialist groups dominate the conversation, leaving these communities with no alternative but to listen to collectivist, anti-business rhetoric. This represents a missed opportunity for libertarians to engage with a politically active and increasingly influential demographic.

Libertarians have a unique opportunity to step into this void by articulating a principled stance on human rights, non-interventionism, and the dangers of authoritarianism, as well as free markets and self-determination. By doing so, they can provide a voice for Arab and Islamic communities who align with these ideals, both at home and abroad.

Building Bridges: A Path Forward

To connect with these communities, libertarians must engage in meaningful outreach. This means showing up at community events, listening to their concerns, and demonstrating how libertarian principles align with their values. It also means highlighting the failures of authoritarian socialism while offering a positive vision of a free and prosperous society.

One practical step that libertarians could take immediately is partnering with local business owners and religious leaders to advocate for policies that promote economic freedom, religious liberty, and educational choice. By standing alongside these communities on issues that matter to them, libertarians can build trust and demonstrate their commitment to individual rights and limited government.

Conclusion: A Natural Alliance Waiting to Be Forged

Arab and Islamic communities in North Carolina represent a politically underserved yet highly engaged demographic. Their entrepreneurial spirit, commitment to religious freedom, rejection of authoritarianism, and support for non-interventionism make them natural allies for libertarians. However, this alliance will not materialize on its own. Libertarians must actively reach out, listen, and articulate a vision of freedom that resonates with these communities.

In a time of heightened political polarization, libertarians have the opportunity to build bridges with groups that share their values but have yet to hear their message. By doing so, they can expand their coalition, advance the cause of liberty, and offer a compelling alternative to the authoritarianism of both the left and the right. The time to act is now.