The Ridiculous Saga of Naked Corruption Continues

by Rob Yates
LPNC Communications Director

Over the past few months, three new parties - the Constitution Party, the Justice For All (JFA) party, and the We The People (WTP) party - collected the required number of signatures to gain recognition and ballot access in North Carolina. The North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) approved the Constitution Party - ostensibly a right-leaning party, and also the WTP party - which is the party for RFK Jr in North Carolina, while rejecting the JFA party - the party under which Cornell West is running for president.

The NCSBE comprises three Democrats and two Republicans. Under the current rules, the Governor's party gets to pick three of the members. Cooper is, of course, a Democrat. No unaffiliated members are on the NCSBE, despite unaffiliated voters making up the largest block in NC, nor are there any Libertarians or Greens on the NCSBE, the other two parties recognized in NC at the beginning of this year. Our government is loathe to actually resemble the people of North Carolina. 

In fact, just last year, Cooper used the courts to fight an attempt by Republicans to increase the number of members to eight, with four members from each major party. He then fought a lawsuit brought by five unaffiliated voters seeking representation on the board. The "party of democracy" seems to have serious concerns with a government that represents anything but its interests. 

Using the Elections Board and the courts to hoard power is a go-to in the playbook for the North Carolina Democrats. In 2022, the NCSBE tried to keep the Green Party and Senate candidate Matthew Hoh off the ballot, despite their petition having the required number of approved and confirmed signatures. The Green Party candidate was viewed as potentially taking votes from the Democrats, and several people reported receiving harassing phone calls asking them to remove their signatures from the petition.

Publicly, the NCSBE claimed that they were concerned about fraudulent signatures. The courts disagreed, and Matthew Hoh gained ballot access while the NC Dems received a strong rebuke for their meritless legal wrangling. The North Carolina Democrats were even further embarrassed this year, when courts awarded the Green Party damages for the Dems' "frivolous" efforts. 

History repeats itself, and the NCSBE this year delayed the votes on recognizing parties that might hurt Democrat candidates, this time the JFA and WTP parties. While reports once again surfaced of harassing phone calls targeting people who signed the petition, the board cited fears of fraudulent signatures and alleged that the two parties were circumventing rules surrounding independent candidates on the ballot (the signature threshold is nearly six times higher for an independent candidate than for a new party to be recognized) as the reasons for delaying the vote and eventually denying the JFA party. 

Both this year and in 2022, Democrat super lawyer Marc Elias, known for filing suits all around the country to help Democrats hoard power so aggressively that he was fired by the Biden campaign, and the Elias Law Group were the face and the finance driving the push to prevent competition. This year, Clear Choice Action superPAC brought some out-of-state money to the fight as well. Together, they sent at least five letters to the NCSBE encouraging them to reject the JFA and WTP applications under nearly the exact same imaginary concerns as two years ago. 

After delaying the vote, the NCSBE eventually would approve the Constitution Party and the WTP party, while rejecting the petition from the JFA party. But this saga is far from over.

After the NCSBE rejected their petition, the JFA party filed a federal lawsuit against the board alleging violation of their constitutional rights and seeking ballot access. In a twist straight out of 2022, however, the North Carolina Democrat Party has also filed a lawsuit against the board and against the WTP party, seeking to have RFK removed from the ballot. The actions of the board and the NC Dems have drawn scrutiny and review from the NC General Assembly and from federal lawmakers. The board did not take action on the lawsuits in its most recent meeting.

The first hearing on the JFA's lawsuit was Tuesday. The Libertarian Party of North Carolina (LPNC) has been engaged in this from the beginning, including a letter from our State Chair, Ryan Brown, signed by 22 leaders from six other parties, calling on the NCSBE to recognize all three parties in the name of fairness and representative government. When they rejected the other two parties, we called for the resignation of the three Democrats on the board. That letter and our related press releases are linked below. We will keep you updated as we have more information or further involvement. 

• LPNC Expresses Strong Disagreement with the NCSBE Decision - Press Release on the June 26 Meeting
• Application to Recognize Three New Parties in North Carolina - Letter from LPNC State Chair Ryan Brown, signed by more than twenty leaders from six different NC parties
  
• LPNC Expresses Strong Disagreement with the NCSBE Decision, Redux, Calls for Resignations - Press Release on the July 9 Meeting
  

LPNC State Chair Ryan Brown discusses the NCSBE decision on the Pete Kaliner show

by Dr. Mike Munger
Duke Professor of Political Science, former LPNC Governor Candidate, and current LPNC Candidate

Read the full article on the American Institute for Economic Research

We seem to be moving towards a wealth tax. At least, there is a growing consensus on one side of the political spectrum that a wealth tax is "needed" — politician-speak for "bad idea that I want to do anyway."

Interestingly, the need for a wealth tax is not primarily the need for revenue, a way to reduce the exploding deficit. That would at least have some tenuous connection to reality, though it would still be a bad idea. The argument for a wealth tax is fairness; as far back as 2008, candidate Barack Obama famously said the quiet part out loud, and strongly advocated for increased taxes on capital gains, even if it explicitly meant that tax revenues declined.

I have written before about some of the reasons that wealth taxes are a problem. The notion of "social justice," and the unique position of the state as controller of coercion, are somehow supposed to justify theft of accumulated savings, even after the owner of the wealth paid his or her taxes on the income. The logic is eternal: "You have something left over? Give us some! And next year, too, until you have nothing."

The difference between an income tax, or consumption/transactions tax, and a wealth tax, is important. The first two are taxes on what economists call flows, activities that are defined over a time period. Income, or consumption spending, is a movement of value, and taxing those movements (flows) is a way of collecting revenue from the working of the system.

Wealth is different, because wealth is the accumulation of income I already paid taxes on...

Article continues on the AIER website.

Mike Munger is a Professor of Political Science, and Director of the PPE Certificate Program, at Duke University. Munger's most recent book, The Sharing Economy, was published in 2021 by the Institute for Economic Affairs.

Written by AI, and checked and updated by Joshua Glawson, LPNC Strategic Communications Adviser

Watch the video: The History of Gold in North Carolina

North Carolina has a profound and storied history with gold and sound money, a legacy that has influenced its economic policies and cultural heritage.

This history is punctuated by the first gold rush in North America, the pioneering Bechtler Mint, and the establishment of the Charlotte Mint.

To fully appreciate this rich past, it's essential to understand what sound money is and its relevance to North Carolina's economic development.

What is Sound Money?

According to Jp Cortez of the Sound Money Defense League, sound money refers to a currency that maintains its value over time and is not subject to significant fluctuations in purchasing power. This stability is achieved by tying the currency's value to a physical commodity, such as gold or silver, which has historical value.

Sound money is considered trustworthy and reliable because it is less susceptible to inflation and government manipulation compared to fiat money, which has no true historical value and is subject to changes in value based on governmental policies and economic conditions.

Early Gold Discoveries and the First Gold Rush

North Carolina's association with sound money began with the first gold rush in North America. In 1799, Conrad Reed, a 12-year-old boy, discovered a 17-pound gold nugget in Cabarrus County. This discovery set off a gold rush that spread through several counties, including Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, and Union. By the early 1800s, gold mining had become a significant industry in North Carolina, second only to agriculture.

The gold rush not only brought wealth to the state but also highlighted the need for a reliable and stable form of currency. This need was partially met by the establishment of private mints, which played a crucial role in the production of sound money.

The Bechtler Mint: A Pioneer of Sound Money

One of the most notable contributions to sound money in North Carolina came from the Bechtler Mint. Christopher Bechtler, a German immigrant, established a private mint in Rutherfordton in 1831. The Bechtler Mint was revolutionary because it produced the first gold dollar coins in the United States, 18 years before the U.S. Mint began producing them.

The Bechtler Mint was instrumental in providing a local and reliable source of gold coinage, which helped maintain economic stability in the region. By offering a trusted and convenient way to convert gold into coins, the Bechtler Mint ensured that gold miners and traders could engage in commerce without the risks and delays associated with transporting gold to the Philadelphia Mint.

The Charlotte Mint: Federal Recognition of North Carolina’s Gold

The success of the Bechtler Mint and the thriving gold mining industry in North Carolina prompted the U.S. government to establish a branch of the U.S. Mint in Charlotte in 1835. The Charlotte Mint exclusively produced gold coins until its closure at the onset of the Civil War in 1861. This federal recognition underscored North Carolina’s importance in the national gold market and its role in promoting sound money.

Joshua D. Glawson and Sound Money in North Carolina

Joshua D. Glawson, a writer of economics, politics, philosophy, and more, has extensively covered the concept of sound money and its historical context in North Carolina. Glawson emphasizes that sound money is crucial for economic stability and prosperity. He argues that North Carolina's early adoption of gold-backed currency and private mints like the Bechtler Mint exemplifies the benefits of a sound money system.

In his writings, Glawson points out that sound money policies helped North Carolina maintain economic stability and foster growth during the 19th century. He also highlights the importance of returning to principles of sound money in modern economic policy to avoid the pitfalls of inflation and currency devaluation that plague fiat money systems.

Conclusion

North Carolina's history with sound money is a testament to the state's innovative and forward-thinking approach to economic stability

From the first gold rush to the pioneering efforts of the Bechtler Mint and the establishment of the Charlotte Mint, North Carolina has played a significant role in promoting sound money principles.

Today, the insights of economists like Joshua D. Glawson remind us of the importance of these principles in ensuring long-term economic prosperity and stability.

*Editor's Note: Article originally posted here on LinkedIn

by Rob Yates
LPNC Communications Director

The immigration debate has reached a fever pitch lately, and promises to be a key issue in the upcoming election on a federal, state, and local level.

Statistics show that immigrants tend to commit slightly less crime than native born Americans, although that research can go several ways depending on who conducts it and how the statistics are interpreted. There have also been some heinous crimes committed by undocumented people in the United States lately, a few of the most high-profile committed by criminals set free by overzealous DAs or judges.

The problem we face when confronting the issue of immigration is the immediate tendency by many having the discussion to group all immigrants together. This sort of collectivist thought is, admittedly, the root of so many of our disagreements and unaddressed social problems, but it is particularly misleading in the immigration debate, as there are as many varied people trying to come into the United States as there are living here. Not all immigrants are violent criminals, nor are all immigrants future studious pillars of society.

None of this should matter, and a free market would provide answers to this question, but we are far from that rational approach. In the meantime, we see how the fear mongering leads to people willing to weaponize the state against peaceful individuals.

Just recently, someone posted on X / Twitter that s/he saw a woman selling flowers on the side of the road and called the police after ascertaining (according to the post) that the woman selling flowers was an "illegal" immigrant (picture above). Someone else followed up in response to the two brilliant tweets (posted below) by the Wake County LP, seeking my thoughts, which I provided online, but wanted to expand on here.

The person who followed up does not appear to be anti-immigrant, but does appear to favor relatively strict border controls, and made an interesting argument about private property rights and how they are analogous to sovereign border rights. Specifically, he noted that it would be a significant violation of one's property rights if someone else planted crops, harvested them, and sold the goods on private property without the permission of the owner of that property.

In my response, I noted that I am for mostly open borders. I believe we first need to eliminate the welfare state entirely, so anyone who comes here must make it on his/her own. I recognize and respect the Radicals' "No Particular Order" position. However, I find it counterproductive and potentially dangerous to grant huge additional incentives, in the form of the welfare state, for people to immigrate beyond the opportunity that our country provides (or at least used to provide before the last two jackasses in office sent us into a hyperinflationary economic environment). The backlash from significantly open border policies in conjunction with the enticement of American welfare, I think, would do long-lasting harm to the push to make peaceful exchange between all willing parties the norm. 

Further, it's ridiculous to take money from people like you and me, who are working hard to earn it and suffering from the economic malfeasance of the last 20 (well, really the last 111) years, and give it to people for simply coming here. That's theft, and those politicians should be in jail. We need to remove those incentives so that all immigrants, and everyone else, are operating from a roughly level playing field.

At that point, I support the "Ellis Island" solution. Let's know who's coming in and work to keep out the bad people. I believe that one of the few proper roles of the state is to protect the borders from aggressors and malign actors. Beyond that, if I, for example, want to invite someone to come stay at my house from another country, the government should have virtually zero insight or input into that decision (though they know all about it now because traitor Republicans and traitor Democrats like Greg Murphy and Jeff Jackson - there's no difference between the two, it's time to #FiretheUniparty - voted for warrantless spying in FISA 702).

Certainly, it would be a gross violation of my property rights for someone else to plant crops on my land without my permission. Further, I respect and agree with - to an extent - the argument about sovereign borders as an analogy. But my property, with defined borders and clear ownership, should not change without voluntary exchange for me to either gain more property or grant someone else ownership (though, as an aside, we need to completely eliminate property tax and eminent domain, and actually enforce the 4th amendment against cops to make this a reality).

On the flipside, who "owns" the territory inside a sovereign border changes depending on how you look at it, and there are levels of implied ownership. Do you "own" the United States if you're a citizen? What if you aren't, but you're here "legally" and you pay taxes? What if you aren't "legal" but you pay taxes? What if you are an expat, but still a tax-paying citizen?

The issue is complicated. There's a line somewhere, and the left has crossed it in what I see as a virtue signal to their poorly informed "anti-colonizer" contingent. Leftist judges and prosecutors letting violent criminals walk is abhorrent, and another argument for getting rid of qualified immunity.

But the right has crossed its own Rubicon when it comes to aggressive anti-immigrant sentiment and violent reactions to peaceful people. I mean, seriously, going after a peaceful person for selling flowers? Calling the cops on that person... That action implies that the state is morally justified to exert its monopoly on violence over peaceful, voluntary commerce. If that person is existing without hurting anyone or taking their stuff, it's no one else's concern what that person is doing. The person selling flowers wasn't damaging any property. And if I choose to spend my money in a voluntary exchange for those flowers, that's also no one else's concern.

The person who called the cops in this case had the same energy as people who call the cops on kids selling lemonade. But I honestly don't blame this person, Karen-ish behavior and all. I blame a political environment that embraces fear-mongering and hatred, and seeks to turn us against each other and place our reliance on a political class that promises to protect us from the horrors of immigrants, or gays, or guns, or Christians, or whatever boogeyman has been selected to drive fear and lead the country to abandon the principles of Liberty and embrace the violence of the state.

We are a nation of immigrants. There are good among us, and there are those who commit evil, just as is the case with every group of humans. Instead of turning our fear and violence against people who mostly come to the United States seeking the same promise and opportunity that we enjoy, let's look to the political class that takes away this promise with every move they make.

by Dr. Mike Munger
Duke Professor of Political Science, former LPNC Governor Candidate, and current LPNC Candidate

Reprinted from Fusion

I am a Libertarian. Capital "L," member of the Party, frequent candidate, activist, and contributor of campaign funds.

Some of my economist friends mock voting, since "it doesn’t matter." Another topic, for another time; let's suppose we agree that I am going to vote. There is still a question: for whom? Many folks feel strongly that I should "vote the LOTE."

LOTE is "the lesser of two evils." In an election between an awful candidate, and a once-in-a generation, apocalyptically terrible candidate, one should vote for the candidate who is merely awful. Anthony Downs called this the "net candidate differential," and thought it was a key to explaining election turnout and vote decisions.

I disagree. It seems to me that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are endorsing evil. The cliché answer is always that "this election is the most important of our lifetime!" Sure, because you sheep keep voting for evil. I understand that my binary "evil/not evil" is not very helpful, when there are degrees of evil. But we have greater moral obligations than simply passively accepting whatever garbage the electoral system serves up.

Look: We "live in a two-party system" because of First Past the Post voting, and Duverger's Law. I put that in quotes because, despite teaching political science at universities for 40 years I’m often told that we "live in a two-party system," as if that has some moral significance. I understand that if you have never studied any formal political science—perhaps you are an economist, but you have "done a lot of reading on Reddit" - that this argument feels persuasive to you.

We do not have a two-party system. What we have is a system that is likely to have two effective parties, in any given election, because people don’t want to "waste their vote" on a candidate who has little chance of winning. But there is a world of difference between the following two situations:

1. After surviving strong competition, from free entry, the two best and most representative parties contest elections, and most people vote for the candidates who run under those two-party banners; and after finding contested elections, with new points of view and candidates who criticize the status quo, to be inconvenient, lazy intellectuals simply dictate that only two parties are allowed to run. That is, voters are free to vote for the candidate of their choice, but we will tell them what their choices are.
2. The second situation represents the current U.S. system. Only the two remarkably corrupt state-sponsored parties are allowed to participate. Neither of them could survive actual competition, and neither of them is capable of advancing a candidate that would have a chance of beating a roadkill possum if elections were actually open.

In January, Gallup released a poll on Presidential preferences that was, frankly, remarkable. To make sure I won't be accused of misrepresenting, here is the money quote describing the findings: "Less than a third of Americans say they would be willing to vote for someone nominated by their party who is over the age of 80 or has been charged with a felony or convicted of a felony by a jury."

That's great news, because it means that neither party can win a majority in November! Neither of these two corrupt clowns can win!

Not so fast, Chester. Lazy intellectuals on both the left and the right find actually persuading people to be tedious, and frankly beneath their august persons. We’ll simply have "rules" that limit the allowable votes to two parties. I understand that these intellectual economists and other scholars, who have no understanding of political institutions, think that they own my vote. Unfair? They accuse my party, the Libertarians, of "stealing" votes from their favored candidates (the superannuated drug warrior and the unrepentant felon, the very people that Gallup found people don't want to vote for, remember!). Votes don’t belong to voters, they belong to parties! Who knew?

That's nonsense, of course. The truth is that the very fact people are willing to vote for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian nominee for President, means that they are dissatisfied with the "take it or leave it!" tactics of the state-sponsored duopoly. The corruption of the state-sponsored machines is so grotesque that I no longer see any important difference between them. Sure, the particular catastrophe that will ensue is different if Biden wins, compared to if Trump wins, but both outcomes are catastrophes.

But suppose you don’t buy my claim that the two candidates represent different, but equally calamitous, outcomes. Suppose you think one candidate is much, much worse than the other. For example, my friends on the right, even people who until recently pretended to value liberty, tell me is that Joe Biden is an existential threat, and that I (and my Libertarian allies) "must" vote for Trump.

I have two responses: First, my vote will not determine the outcome. If you want my "emergency" vote, you’ll need to provide a candidate who sucks less.

Second, it is possible that Libertarian votes as a group will determine the outcome (I certainly hope so!). Early polling shows that third party candidates will take three times as many votes from Biden than from Trump. I'm not a Trump fan, but I’m okay with Oliver causing Trump to win, because if the Democrats want my "emergency" vote they will need to suck less, also. But the point is that having a Libertarian candidate, and having Chase actively campaign, in many states, may end up helping Trump.

Two-thirds of Americans said they didn’t want to vote for a dotard or a convict. Telling me I have to vote for one of those debauched caitiffs doesn’t pass the laugh test. It’s my vote, my only precious tool for protesting this disastrous forced choice.

Mike Munger is a Professor of Political Science, and Director of the PPE Certificate Program, at Duke University. Munger's most recent book, The Sharing Economy, was published in 2021 by the Institute for Economic Affairs.

David has been a Liberty warrior for more than 50 years. He submitted the below to the Gaston Gazette, for publication on Wednesday.

by David Hoesly

LPNC and Gaston County LP

As we celebrate another Independence Day, it's an appropriate time to ponder its deeper meaning. Independence means not being dependent on others--having the freedom to chart your own course, so long as you don't harm others or take their stuff.

Our country is presently embroiled in a presidential race among several candidates, two of which are wildly unpopular--with different people.

It seems appropriate to support a candidate--or a cause--that reflects one's own values, and polls show that the majority of people support fiscal prudence and social freedom--melding the best ideas of conservatives and progressives.

Neither of the candidates of the uniparty (Democrats and Republicans) support either. They talk a good game, sure, but let's judge them by their actions!

Fiscal irresponsibility has been the order of the day, with government spending skyrocketing under the last two administrations, a burden that will be foisted on our children and grandchildren--who had no say in accepting that debt burden.

Fixing the immigration crisis would allow people who are escaping horrific regimes to settle here after being vetted by a streamlined immigration policy, each of those people using one brain and two hands to create goods and services--and thus wealth--for all of us.

And ending the ill-fated War On Drugs (which is really a war on people who choose to ingest what politicians and bureaucrats forbid) would free up police resources to fight crimes that actually have victims. It's encouraging that more and more states are liberalizing their restrictions on marijuana--a baby step in the right direction.

So if you truly support fiscal responsibility and social freedom, you should support the Libertarian Party candidates for offices at the local, state and federal levels. Declare your independence!

Written Statements of Speakers - Friday, June 14, 2024

Watch the video here

Travis Groo, Moderator - Chair, Libertarian Party of Wake County  

It’s an honor to moderate the More Voices, More Choices rally downtown Raleigh. We all know that the two-party system is not resonating with more than half of all voters in North Carolina. We have more than a binary system and it’s time for the people of North Carolina to see more choices on their ballot.

For far too long, the Republicans and Democrats have had a stronghold on our election process, but the voice of the people is rising up. They want to be heard and they will be heard.

Thank you to all the organizers who put the rally together, and the multiple parties involved. As a libertarian, I believe we can work together in a peaceful manner to achieve our goals, without the initiation of force, fraud and coercion.

Wayne Turner - Candidate for Governor, Green Party

In 1998, the linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky observed, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."

He saw the spectrum of acceptable opinion limited by a self-censoring commercial media and a two-party system more responsive to wealth than the public good. It is to the advantage of the major parties to limit competition in the political arena, because it brings them money and power. Consequently, we have an antiquated electoral system resistant to change, built on a constitution written to limit political control as much as possible to the privileged in service of wealth.

The public, including those present today, do not go before our elected officials as free individuals participating in a democratic society. Instead, we go before them as supplicants, hat in hand, asking for an audience for our views and ideas. If our ideas happen to align closely enough with theirs, we may find some acceptance. If not, our ideas die with their preferences and biases, and are not subject to public debate. Two primary factors have led to this broken system, which disintegrates further daily.

The first contributor is the single-seat, single-district nature of our offices, combined with plurality voting, which routinely devolves into a system of two parties competing for votes in a divided electorate, leading to polarization and ugly, money-fueled negative campaigns. Winners use legislated gerrymandering and oppressive law to cement power and control. Losers have no expectation of consideration in any regard.

Second is the fact that the major parties determine eligibility for competition. An obvious conflict of interest, this creates an inconsistent collection of state laws across the US, a further barrier to entry into the national political system.

We need a comprehensive re-imagination of electoral politics in the US. But there are changes that, if widely adopted, would reduce many of the harmful effects in the current system.

1. Stop letting the two major parties decide who is or isn’t worthy to share space with them.

2. Stop the new charade of non-partisan primaries. It presents an illusion of choice while preserving the influence of the major parties.

3. Move to proportional representation and eliminate single-seat districts. This means legislative bodies must be larger than they are today, and rightly so given our increased population without a proportionate increase in representatives.

4. Institute ranked choice voting in cases where a single seat is contested.

To the state of North Carolina, I say that the time has come to end the two-party system. It buries the future of the state in ideologically driven public policy that favors profit over people, and it has left us contemplating the total loss of democracy as each party seeks to dominate the other at all costs.

Stop this charade, open the political system to all, and see that your ideas are far from the only possibilities for a brighter future. Your exclusivity is not a viable path forward.

Brad Hessel - Candidate for NC Senate District 18, Libertarian Party

Being a libertarian is really easy. There are just two rules:

• Don’t hurt folks

• Don’t steal their stuff

Is there anyone here who doesn’t agree with those two rules?

Nope? Great! Congratulations: you’re all libertarian!

Another thing we likely all agree on is our frustration with the two-party duopoly that produces office holders who seem interested mainly in posting schoolyard insults on X/Twitter to stoke their base and gerrymandering to accentuate and preserve their electoral advantage. Responsibly addressing public policy concerns is way down the list.

Accordingly, electoral reform is a top priority for me. I want to draw your attention to one particular proposal that is gaining me a lot of traction: implementing instant runoff voting—also known as ranked-choice voting—as an option for municipal and county elections.

We use plurality voting in North Carolina which works fine in two-candidate races, the kind that the duopoly prefers... But if you have three or more candidates, it’s possible for a candidate to be elected with less than a majority, which is fundamentally undemocratic. And occasionally, the system mandates a runoff, which not only doubles the cost of that election, but turnout is notoriously terrible… you can have the winner getting fewer votes in the runoff than the loser got in the original election. Not exactly a mandate!

Instant runoff voting (or "IRV") addresses both these problems. You rank the candidates in order of preference, and if no candidate gets a majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated and the votes for her or him are redistributed to each voter’s second choice. If there’s still no winner, the process is repeated until someone gets a majority. Never a need for a runoff, and never a winner with less than a majority.

And bonus: no wasted votes! If your favorite candidate is eliminated before the election is decided, you still get a say in the outcome, presuming you picked a second choice.

But the best thing of all is that IRV incentivizes candidates to build consensus rather than being divisive because candidates who work to attract second- and third-choice votes have an advantage over candidates who only speak to their base and antagonize other voters.

You may ask, if IRV is so great, why am I only advocating it for county and municipal elections?

Pure political practicality. IRV can’t be used anywhere without North Carolina General Assembly approval. And the powers that be at the NCGA are not about to consider IRV for themselves or statewide races; they are too happy with the status quo to risk rocking the boat. But it’s no skin off their nose if a locality uses it.

My hope is that once North Carolinians see the advantages of IRV over plurality voting in local elections, demand for implementing it statewide will grow, both outside and inside of the general assembly.

So, as you guys representing other third parties attain ballot access and get to the point of running state and local candidates, please consider putting instant runoff voting at the top of your electoral reform priorities.

Matthew Hoh - Former US Senate Candidate (2022), Green Party

Thank you for inviting me here today.

We here today represent political choice, political imagination and political independence.

These state, corporate media and political elites that locked arms to prevent and deny political choice, political imagination and political independence for me and the Green Party are continuing today to protect and advance their own selfish, greedy and petty concerns and interests.

We see this in their grossly obscene and all too obvious undemocratic actions against the Kennedy, Stein and West campaigns both in this state and nationwide. We see it in their unjust and specious obstruction of the Constitution Party here in North Carolina. We see it in the untold numbers of citizens in every election cycle who realize politics is closed to them unless they possess great wealth or a mindless and slavish disposition to serve those with such wealth.

And, we see it in the millions who don't vote, not because they are lazy or apathetic, but because they know ours is a rigged and corrupt political system that doesn't want, let alone reward, their participation.

Yet, as the elites that control power unite to keep that power, we unite to oppose them. We have no choice but to remember who they are and, despite our differences, who we are. To abdicate to them, to leave them the political space to determine our lives and our futures, is cowardly and treacherous to any of us possessed of the hearts, minds and souls of free men and women.

To give up our self-determination through constitutional and natural rights passed on to us by men and women, ranging from Thomas Paine to Angela Davis, is a diminishment and meanness that none of us here will ever accept.

They will not stop fighting us because political independence is an existential threat to them. Their tactics and strategies will broaden and grow more tyrannical and criminal, and that is ultimately what we want them to do: expose themselves for who they are and who they represent. Faced with such an adversary, knowing the increased oppression that is coming, we will remain steadfast. We will pursue democracy, we will keep to the freedoms as articulated in our Constitution, we will advance and advocate for the rights of all, and we will not surrender our political independence, whether to the state, to corporations or to the elites' failed, noxious and grotesque political parties.

Our fight for political independence will only grow harder and may never get easier, but capitulation is not possible. As the earth and the people the elites have debased, harmed and stolen from erode, devolve and loom heavy with apocalyptic risks, we are left with no choice. Our metaphysical need for political independence is coupled with a bodily danger from a collapsing economic, societal, and military order that endangers us all. I cannot overstate the connection between the need for political choice, imagination and freedom and the consequences the established political elites will bring upon us if we allow their political theater to continue.

Continue our fight for political independence. There is no other option.

Vinny Smith - Treasurer, Constitution Party - Candidate, Governor

During our petition drive for ballot access, I've had the opportunity to speak with thousands of registered voters. You shared with me that you believe there are better third party candidates running for office than those of the uniparty. We thank the thousands of North Carolinians who signed our petition.>

When you signed our petition, that was your voice saying you believe a third party, the Constitution Party of NC, should have ballot access and take part in the electoral process.

Well I am here to tell you today that the State Board of Elections is trying to silence your voice and they are doing all they can to deny us ballot access. On April 1, the Constitution Party of NC turned in all of the petitions we had on hand to the State Board of Elections for the certification process. At that time, the State Board of Elections Petition Tracking Website showed we had more than 1,100 valid signatures above the required threshold. On April 12, the State Board of Elections notified us that there was an error in their online reporting system and they deducted over 2,000 signatures leaving us roughly 1,300 signatures below the requirement.

We immediately began petitioning again and on April 30 we went over the threshold requirement for the second time. Despite being 630 valid signatures over the threshold, we received an email from the State Board of Elections on June 7 stating that we were only 9 signatures over the threshold. Yesterday, June 13, after 4:00pm, the Constitution Party of NC received an email from the State Board of Elections saying that they are going to conduct an audit on 1,050 of our signatures.

These are the games the State Board of Elections is playing, but we are not going to stand for it.

We demanded that the State Board of Elections put the Constitution Party of NC’s Petition for Ballot Access on their agenda during their meeting Monday, June 17. They did not, and unfortunately, we will have to look at legal action if our petition validation continues to be stalled. The Constitution Party of NC has won two court cases against the State Board of Elections over the past few years and we will win this one also.

The Constitution Party of NC will ensure that the voice of North Carolinians is heard and that you have another third-party option.

Myia Hall - Founder and Vice Chair, Forward Party

I joined the Forward Party after my college best friend gave me Andrew Yang's book, Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy. It opened my eyes to the structural issues within our democracy that have often taken a backseat to social issues. I realized that under Democratic and Republican leadership, the shape of our lives has been determined by significant gaps in our government infrastructure.

We watched our parents lose houses in 2008, experienced tyranny in my first voting experience, and faced a pandemic as I entered the workforce after graduation. The world stopped, and I followed the rules—working hard, studying, getting good grades, and securing a job—but the path that allowed previous generations to buy new homes on a modest salary no longer exists for us.

I felt the need to see people like myself in politics—people with new ideas, not part of the old guard, and willing to work for the changes I wanted to see. When my best friend from undergrad asked me to help build a new political party, I was initially at a loss. My education in biology hadn't prepared me for political activism. I understood the central dogma of biology (DNA makes RNA, RNA makes protein) and could trace the pathway of blood through the heart, but I was clueless about engaging with lawyers, judges, legislators, senators, and the chair of my own national party. My only certainty was a growing fear as I watched the country's temperature rise, igniting small fires in the lives of those around me.>

Fortunately, the leaders I approached were receptive and eager to engage. Many shared my fears, though they masked them better, articulating their concerns eloquently in suits rather than cargo pants and a bandana. I soon realized that beneath the party lines lay a network of individuals united in their struggle. It became clear that the nature of our fight had evolved in recent years. The prevailing sentiment was that we needed a fresh approach because the status quo ensured no one truly won. Politics was tearing families apart, leaving people like me feeling stagnant as social issues took precedence. My generation faces the grim prospect of unaffordable housing.

Despite these pressing issues, social discourse often takes precedence, and I say this as a member of several marginalized communities. The struggles that plague the LGBT community, such as homelessness, early death, and human trafficking, are replaced by blog pieces asking whether Santa Claus should be androgynous. These are problems that plague all youths in our society. 

Performance has taken the place of common-sense actions and solutions, and fear of exile from your political party makes you betray your beliefs. Everyone should be able to disagree with their parties without fear of alienation, but this is not possible with our current system. I'm done falling for the trap and am committed to fighting for the change I want to see. I will work with anyone from both sides of the aisle committed to listening to others, whether we agree or not. This is how we move our country forward together.

Ryan Rabah - Vice Chair, We the People Party

Thank you all for being here.

First, let me say I love that we are all here together, united in speaking out against the systems that silence third parties in this state. Can you imagine the Duopoly parties standing shoulder to shoulder and having a civil political discourse about anything? I can't.

To paraphrase George Orwell, the final thing the Party will tell you is to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. My friends, that day has arrived. The duopoly wants us to believe there are no alternatives, that we should not believe our eyes and ears.

They use our money on forever wars and tell us it's peace; they feed our children poison and tell us it's food; they suffocate our constitutional rights and tell us that is how democracy breathes. And they continue to feed us lies.

But Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s revolutionary approach to politics is to just tell the truth. We The People built our foundation on that very same maxim. Truth to power: we need environmental stewardship, access to safe food, transparency in politics, protection of free speech, medical freedom, and a break from the corporate-captured duopoly. It wasn't always easy, but We the People did the work.

• We were there at the community college when it was literally below freezing, and our hands were shaking so much we didn't know if the signatures would count.

• We were there in Freedom Park when it was so hot that a bead of sweat fell on the petition, so we asked the person to re-sign to make sure it would count.

• We were there at all the county boards where official after official praised the quality of our signatures.

• We were there almost three weeks ago, right up the street, when we proudly handed in our thousands of petitions to the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

And now we hear about potential acts of sabotage: groups calling and harassing our petition signers, groups trying to pressure and coerce the board to not certify us. These are the same groups that, in order to "save democracy," are willing to eviscerate democracy.

Because of that, I stand before you calling for the State Board to certify We The People as an official political party in our state. We have followed all the rules, we have followed all the statutes, and we deserve to be certified immediately.

The people of North Carolina have spoken; they started this job. The We The People volunteers went out and got their signatures; we did our job. The 100 county boards across our state verified all those signatures; they did their job. Now, we humbly ask the State Board of Elections to follow suit and finish the job. We need our certification so that we can get to the actual job of working for the great people of this state.

Sean Haugh - Vice Chair, Libertarian Party - Candidate, NC Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services

The Libertarian Party has been through this struggle for decades. While we have secured our own ballot access already, it is very important to us to show support for absolutely anyone who wants to participate in electoral politics and run as a candidate to offer themselves up for public service here in North Carolina. Anybody who is here to help us fire the uniparty, you are my friend and my ally and I am happy to support you today.

The Libertarian Party had to petition several times to get on the ballot every four years. One thing we never had to put up with in all of our petitioning struggles was any question about the number of valid signatures that we had submitted.

The statutes in North Carolina are very clear. The county boards of elections examine the signatures that third party and unaffiliated candidates have collected. They verify them, and once the counties have certified that there are enough petition signatures to meet the requirement, that's it. The State Board of Elections has no statutory authority whatsoever to ask questions or investigate beyond that point.

They have no statutory authority to listen to people, like Democrats, who want to complain and keep the ballot just to themselves. So yes, we urge the North Carolina State Board of Elections to do their duty and certify these parties and independent candidates who want to be on the ballot and to reject any of these frivolous complaints against them from people who just want to have their own party on the ballot and no one else.

What is the value of having as many candidates on the ballot as possible? It’s so a voter can walk into the voting booth and vote FOR somebody they want. The more options that are on the ballot, the more likely a voter will show up. And just as important, that voter will be excited about voting for what they believe. They won’t be voting against what they fear the most. 

This is what will revitalize our democracy and this is what we need.

by Money Metals Exchange

(Charlotte, North Carolina – May 21, 2024) – For the ninth straight year, a national precious metals dealer is teaming up with the nation’s preeminent sound money policy group to help students pay for the ever-increasing costs associated with continuing education. Money Metals Exchange has partnered with the Sound Money Defense League to present the 2024 Sound Money Scholarship -- the first gold-backed scholarship of the modern era.

Starting in 2016, these organizations have set aside 100 ounces of physical gold (currently worth more than $240,000) to reward outstanding students who display a thorough understanding of economics, monetary policy, and sound money. The Sound Money Scholarship is open to high school seniors, undergraduates, and graduate students with an interest in economics: specifically the free-market tradition. Applicants do not have to be economics majors to be eligible to receive this scholarship. Money Metals Exchange and the Sound Money Defense League also announced this year’s blue-ribbon panel of judges: Jerry Kirkpatrick, PhD is Professor Emeritus of International Business and Marketing at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (aka Cal Poly Pomona).

Sen. Eric Brakey* serves as the Executive Director of the Free State Project. Brakey began his political journey as the Maine State Director for the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign and became the youngest state senator in America two years later. Over three non-consecutive terms in public office, Senator Eric Brakey has been a leading critic of inflationary policies and an advocate for sound money, championing legislation to remove taxes and restore legal tender status for gold and silver.

Ken Silva is a reporter for Headline USA and a contributor to The Libertarian Institute. He has more than a decade of experience in journalism, covering topics such as FBI corruption, offshore finance, and extremist politics. His favorite reporter is the late JD Cash. Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. He previously served for 21 years as President of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan (1987-2008). He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.

Last year, the Sound Money Scholarship received entries from students attending more than 150 different schools across 44 states, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., six countries, and three continents, and nine exceptional students were awarded $13,500 in scholarship money. Articles found to be written by AI will be automatically disqualified from consideration.

The deadline to submit applications is October 31, 2024.

For more information, please visit moneymetals.com/scholarship or email [email protected].

*Editor's Note: Sen. Eric Brakey is the featured guest on the upcoming Liberty iNC. 

by: Chad Stall, LPNC Guest Writer

The thought of bringing together as many political parties as possible was an inspiration from the French Revolution, one of the bloodiest revolutions that lasted for years and remembered for heads being severed from bodies. The French were not trying to free themselves from another nation, but from each other. This desire of France wanting a Republic and needing to eliminate their Monarchy started with hunger and ended with a supreme leader.  

In America, there is a hunger for political change, a hunger for a revival back to the great nation we all once knew, and there is a growing hunger for literal food. The separation of our classes is becoming more and more apparent, and the separation of citizens and their government continues to widen. I am not sure what is causing this phenomenon, or the reasons why, but most people I talk with can see it as well as feel it. This observation sparked curiosity in me. “Who are these third parties and what do they believe in? Why are we seeing efforts to bring new parties into North Carolina?” I feel the answer is simple. Too many people believe they have no representation. I would suggest those people are correct. The distance between citizens and government is too great. Maybe you have thought to yourself “Where is my representation?”

I began reaching out, having discussions and extending the invitations. Some accepted straightaway, others needed a little convincing. I did hit a couple of snags along the way finding Republican and Democrat representation. Nevertheless, my efforts paid off and we created a panel of eight individuals from seven parties. The Green, Forward, We the People (Kennedy), Veteran, Republican, Democrat, and two from the Libertarian parties all came together to share space and civil discourse. 

As people arrived, they began mixing and mingling. The panel took their places and began introducing themselves. One highlight was when Wayne Turner, Green party governor candidate, stood up and suggested we could all hate him because he is a "Socialist" and yet he was listened to and accepted for exactly who he claimed to be. I am not a believer in socialism, but the goal was to gather and share.  He made some good points.

As the event moved to public engagement, I could see heads from different political parties shaking in agreement with those I thought would be in opposition. This was something I didn’t think was possible, and yet there it was, happening in real time. When the topic of government transparency came up, there was very little disagreement, if any at all … a triumphant idea that is needed in our country more than ever. So, what is stopping us from transparency being provided? The answer is easy … lack of representation to the citizens.

Another great example was when Mike Ross (firetheuniparty.com) began sharing his inspiration to run for governor. The story of a military vet, who would ask for money from others; this veteran was arrested, and his service animal was tazed and taken away from him and killed by a car. You could see the consensus being made with no words being said other than Mike’s story. We all knew this was not fair treatment. 

Our media, and sometimes even our own political parties and elected representatives will only give us one angle or one side of a story. In politics these angles usually result in one fighting with the other over a topic they might not even understand.  The design to keep citizens fighting one another is purposeful and poisonous to our society. We must continue making the effort to maintain the element of humanity with each other. The existence of third parties is becoming more and more imperative if we want to keep our Republic.    

A revival of our great Republic is needed. Some of us witnessed a Republic in real time this week. May the third parties continue to rise and continue filling the void where representation has been stripped from citizens.

Thank you to all who participated, attended, and supported this event. Keep checking in at www.Pintsandpolitics.social for future events.

Feel free to email if you want to connect. [email protected]  

by: George Autry, Mises Institute

THURSDAY

My train from Raleigh to DC pulled into Union Station two hours and one minute behind schedule. This left me less than an hour and a half to wait in the cab queue, negotiate downtown DC traffic to the hotel, check in (I saw Scott Horton check in just ahead of me), and register for the convention. I tried to attend the welcome reception, but there was no food and very few attendees while I was there. I gave up and went back to my room and had room service about 9:30.

FRIDAY

This morning, I went back to registration to check up on some questions I had. I also went to the credentials committee to see if there was a possibility of getting seated in a delegation that was not full.  This is how I became a delegate at the 1996 and 2000 conventions, but competition for LP delegate slots has tightened considerably since then. I didn’t attend the NCLP state convention this year to get elected as a delegate. I was told that I would have to talk to different state chairs to see if they needed and accepted delegates after the convention had started.

At nine I went to the main ballroom where the delegations are seated and the convention was scheduled to start. I went to talk to the NCLP delegation chair and learned that our bylaws prohibit the addition of delegates after the state convention. Next I talked to Virginia, but their bylaws don’t allow out-of-state delegates. I got some hints about other states that might need delegates, and ended up talking to the Oklahoma delegation chair. He had vacancies and his state’s bylaws allow adding delegates, including out-of-state delegates. But he had to do some checking and I haven’t heard yet whether I will be accepted. Stay tuned.

Because I am reporting for the Mises Club of the Carolinas, and am a sustaining supporter of the Mises Institute, I intend to focus the rest of my report on the fortunes of the Mises Caucus of the Libertarian Party,  of which I am also a member and supporter. The Mises Caucus, organized by Michael Heise and supported by Tom Woods, Dave Smith, Scott Horton, and many other supporters of Austrian Economics, swept the elections for Libertarian National Committee positions at the last national convention in Reno (the “Reno Reset”). This created a firestorm of controversy within the party which puzzled me at first. But I have come to understand that the schism in the party is between so-called left libertarians, who believe that the focus of libertarianism is to insure that every alternative (i.e.  non-traditional) non-aggressive lifestyle is supported if not celebrated, and the Austrian School libertarians who willingly tolerate every non-aggressive lifestyle, but who believe that the realities of economic law favor most traditional lifestyles for very cogent social reasons.

The first three hours of the business of the convention was consumed in a battle to seat delegates who had been submitted by a state but had somehow been disqualified and not included on the credentials committee list. Michigan had a list of 34 delegates and 41 alternates, of which only 7 had been seated when the credentials committee reported. I don’t know the details of the Michigan case, but I suspect it has something to do with machinations of either the Mises Caucus or their opponents.

Several delegates had signs saying “Mises Caucus Vote No” or Mises Caucus Vote Yes”. These signs were held up as standing votes were taken, so it is safe to assume that those who stood for No when the No signs were up and voted Yes when the Yes signs were up were supporters of the MC position. No other group seemed to have that level of coordination, but the group in favor of seating the contested delegates was a rowdy bunch. Whenever they stood to vote for or against a motion, they loudly chanted “SEAT THEM ALL! SEAT THEM ALL!”

The largest group of contested delegates were from the Michigan delegation. They were eventually credentialed and seated, which I understood as a setback for the MC. I later was able to get some of the details of the Michigan situation. After their state convention it was alleged that 13 of the voting delegates at that convention were not actually qualified to vote under state party bylaws (probably because they had not been party members long enough). The state party judicial committee ruled that these voters had not been credentialed, and also ruled that only seven of the previously elected delegates would have been elected on the assumption that all 13 bogus votes had gone to them and were then removed from the equation. This may not be an entirely accurate account but it is the best I’ve been able to piece together.

This is purely speculation, but it is not unreasonable to think that the entity that tracked down the technicality in the Michigan LP bylaws and brought the violations to the attention of the judicial committee is most likely the Mises Caucus. If the leaders of the MC thought that the Michigan slate of delegates posed a threat to their party dominance, and found a legal method to mitigate the threat, they would be remiss as leaders by taking no action. But I also think that attitude would be seen as undemocratic and therefore un-libertarian by many, including even some MC members or allies, so the party remedied the situation by overturning the ruling of the judicial committee.

My observations from the morning session makes me think the Mises Caucus represents roughly half of the convention delegates, but I don’t think they hold a majority, and I have no idea what other factions may be aligned with or against them or on which issues. What has surprised me is the strong support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at this convention. After a luncheon at which Gabriel Shipton, younger half-brother of Julian Assange spoke about his brother’s trials and the history, purpose and significance of WikiLeaks, I attended a speech by RFK Jr. His speech emphasized the Bill of Rights and was very well written to appeal to libertarians. One of his promises is to pardon Edward Snowden and drop all charges against Julian Assange on Day One, bringing applause from the crowd. But he ignored Ross Ulbricht, even as shouts of “Free Ross!” filled the air.

Actually, between lunch and the RFK Jr. speech, I skipped the business meeting, grateful that I was not a delegate and not obligated to attend. I spent the time writing much of the foregoing. I am a little sorry I didn’t attend, as it was reported to me that the session degenerated into obscene invective shouted into multiple microphones simultaneously. One delegate was “physically removed” (ala Hoppe) by the Sergeant-at-Arms. I’m looking forward to seeing the YouTube clips.

After RFK’s speech, I got dinner, then attended the Vice Presidential debate between Larry Sharpe and Clint Russell, the MC endorsed candidate. Dave Smith moderated. After the debate, a straw poll was held and Clint was favored by 52%, which meant that he then debated Vivek Ramaswamy, also moderated by Dave. Before the debate began, Vivek was granted time to make a short address, which went over very well with the audience. But in the actual debate he eventually moved to suggesting a merger of the libertarian movement and the MAGA movement, which didn’t go down as well, particularly since he was suggesting that our goal as a party should be to gain influence in the upcoming administration (assuming Trump wins). He made some solid arguments, but Trump will never be acceptable to purist libertarians. Vivek elicited many boos defending Trump, which makes me concerned that a significant part of the convention will just try to boo Trump off the stage tomorrow evening.

There was a comedy show scheduled at 9:30. I planned to go, I thought it was going to be Dave Smith but it wasn’t and I’m too old to stay up that late anyway, so I’ll finish for the night.

SATURDAY

At breakfast I heard speaker Peter McCollough, an American cardiologist. His talk was about the Covid regime and particularly about the history of harm associated with vaccines. After breakfast I had to run an errand, then I checked in on the morning business meeting. When I arrived, the presidential candidate debate, originally scheduled for this afternoon, was already underway. I noted that Michael Rectenwald, the MC endorsed candidate, got the most enthusiastic audience response, even receiving standing ovations for several points. This was a further indication to me that the MC is the most dominant faction at this convention.

One of the candidates, a surgeon named Charles Ballay, while strongly condemning mandated vaccinations, also defended the use of vaccines administered voluntarily. He was drowned out by boos from the delegates.

I also learned from an article forwarded by Kent Misegades, that the cause of yesterday’s chaotic afternoon session was the Trump invitation. The person removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms was shouting “F*ck Trump” into the microphone and shoving people. I am even more concerned that tonight’s Trump speech could devolve into a fiasco.

I just returned from lunch with Dave Smith as speaker. Needless to say he was supportive of the MC, and admitted that he was one of the main causes of the division in the party stemming from the Takeover (Dave was the first to use the term). He also stated that his reason for joining the party and the MC was in response to criticisms of Ron Paul coming from a former LNC chair (Nicholas Sarwark, but Dave never named him). He addressed an issue that had come up in the Presidential candidate debate, what is the purpose of the Libertarian Party, is it to win elections or to spread the libertarian message. He strongly disputed the idea that the party should always come first, pointing out that compromising on principle to gain electoral success gains you nothing but compromised office holders. I was able to chat with Dave after the talk and got a selfie.

Dave took a few questions at the end, and one delegate asked him to exhort the audience to maintain decorum at tonight’s Trump appearance. Dave said we should certainly treat him with respect and applaud if he makes a good statement, but to boo the really bad ideas. He also added that he knew libertarians were going to do whatever they want, regardless of his advice. I have about six hours until the Trump speech. I may spend a little time in the business meeting.

At the business meeting, I met a young lady in the Connecticut delegation, who invited me to sit in a vacant chair in their section. As we listened to the LNC chair candidates give their campaign pitches I got some more details from her perspective about the seating of contested delegates. She adamantly maintained that there was no justification for the National party organization, specifically the LNC under MC leadership, to interfere in state party vetting of its delegates. I have to agree with her on that score. She also insisted that it was the LNC under MC leadership, that brought the case to the Michigan judicial committee, as I speculated earlier. But though decidedly not a MiCauc, she insisted that she gets along well with her other delegation members who are.

Incidentally, the delegate on the other side of me was Michael Rectenwald’s campaign manager, so now I have a “Rec the Regime” pin on my badge. Before I could have a conversation with her, the vote for LNC chair was called and non-delegates were requested to clear the floor, so I left and came back to my room to retrieve my phone and write this. I’m going back down to the meeting now. The Secret Service is putting up barriers on escalators and stairways. I also ran into a Trump impersonator on the way up to my room.

It is now 4:28. I just returned from the business meeting, where Angela McArdle received 49.2% of the vote for LNC chair. Like I said earlier, about half but not quite a majority. But I will be surprised if she doesn’t get elected on the next ballot. Meanwhile, people are already queuing up to go through security for the Trump speech at 8:00. I grabbed a sandwich on the way up. I guess I’ll get changed and head back down in about an hour to try and get a decent seat.

It took 20-30 minutes to get through security and find a seat at about 5:24. The general public was invited to the event, so about half the attendees were Trump fanatics. After about an hour, Angela McArdle came to the mic and announced that the first few rows had been promised to delegates and asked that any non-delegates (i.e. Trump supporters) in those rows please move back. There was a large central aisle dividing the room in half, front to back. I was seated behind the aisle, so I ended up surrounded by Republicans. I had a nice conversation with the lady sitting next to me, who was curious about libertarianism.

Trump finally took the stage at 8:37. His speech seemed less off-the-cuff than some Trump speeches I’ve seen. He basically ticked off all of the things he had accomplished during his term that libertarians would agree with, while emphasizing that Biden is the worst president in history and will destroy the country with communism and Marxism if elected to a second term. This made me remember that RFK Jr. and Vivek had not really mentioned Biden at all in their talks.

My fears of the delegates disrupting the talk proved unfounded, but the Trump fans were a different matter, frequently leaping up and shouting “We want Trump! We want Trump!”. I occasionally heard boos from the front, but not loud enough to drown out the speaker. But when the Trump fans got going, you just had to wait it out. The delegates did respond so that “We want Trump!” sometimes morphed into “End the Fed! End the Fed!”.

Trump concluded by saying that if we Libertarians wanted to be winners, we should nominate him. This did not receive a favorable reaction from the delegates.

SUNDAY

Breakfast was with Mark Skousen, financial publisher and organizer of FreedomFest. After breakfast, I spent a little time in the business meeting. The morning was taken up with nominations of presidential candidates, then nominee speeches. About 10:30 I left to walk a few blocks to a local market. When I got back, it was about time for lunch. The speaker was Spike Cohen, the Libertarian VP candidate in 2020, Jo Jorgensen’s running mate. Spike is a very impressive communicator.

After lunch, the delegates embarked on the first of six ballots, finally coming down to Chase Oliver, Michael Rectenwald, and NOTA (None Of The Above, a choice on every Libertarian ballot). After the vote was tallied, there was a razor thin margin but neither candidate had 50%+. Under the bylaws, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, but since the highest vote-getter, Chase Oliver, did not have a majority, the last ballot listed Oliver and NOTA, and if NOTA had won, the Libertarian party would not have had a presidential candidate this year. Of course, that did not happen, Chase Oliver is the LP presidential candidate for 2024. This was announced around 9:30.

I watched most of the afternoon session on C-Span in my hotel room. I dressed for the Gala scheduled for 7:30, but when I arrived the convention was nowhere near breaking up. I popped into the convention hall again and got a selfie with Spike and another with Clint Russell. I also had a nice talk with Jeff, (I’ve forgotten the last name) who is the national coordinator for the MC. This was well before the announcement that Rectenwald had been defeated, so that was not a topic of discussion. We did discuss the factionalism in the party and I told him what I had written on Friday about the difference between left-libertarians and Austrian School libertarians.

About 8:00 I went back to the “Gala” and had dinner at a table for 10 with a father whose wife was a delegate and his 7 or 8 year old daughter, in a huge room with seating at tables for 200, with about a dozen and a half other people. Came back to my room to finish this off, and watched the announcement of Oliver’s election, and listened to his victory speech. The convention is probably still going on (it’s 11:35), they have not elected a VP candidate or the five at-large representatives on the LNC, but C-Span cut their coverage at 10, so I’ll have to find out what happened tomorrow before I leave to catch my train.

So for the second time, the Mises Caucus candidate for president was not selected by the convention. I didn’t spend much effort learning about Mr. Oliver since I was already committed to Rectenwald and am not a delegate anyway. I did not hear anything in his victory speech that indicated that his victory was any way a repudiation of the Mises Caucus, or that his priorities would differ much from the MC.

So I hope the MiCaucs will support him wholeheartedly in this election cycle and get the best result possible in November. Unfortunately, with RFK Jr. to soak up the protest vote, the reality is that we could come in fifth, behind Trump, Biden, Kennedy, and either Jill Stein or Cornell West.

MONDAY

I spoke to two delegates from Georgia and learned that the convention continued until 1:30 am. There were three ballots for VP, and the winner was Mike Ter Maat, one of the unsuccessful POTUS candidates. Out of 800 votes, Rectenwald lost by 6 votes, and Russell (VP candidate) lost by 31. So the support for the MC was not enough to get those candidates over the top. It is interesting that on the final ballot for POTUS, NOTA got 36%, which means 36 percent of the delegates were willing to risk not having a candidate in 2024 to electing Chase Oliver. I don’t know if these were all MC delegates who were angry over the elimination of Rectenwald with such a slim margin, of if there is some other reason they object to Oliver. It is safe to say that the divisions in the party were not healed at this convention.