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.

by: Livermush and Grits

Yes. You read that title right. "Don't Tread on Me" vibes with reparations. Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" is on my list of top 20 favorite movies, if not on my top 10. At the beginning of the movie, Mel Gibson's character is debating with another person on whether or not South Carolina should declare its independence from England.

Mel Gibson's quote "Why should I trade ONE tyrant, 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants ONE mile away?"

The point of this debate is directed at a National Level. Don't Tread On Me is historically rooted, rightly so, of government overreach at a large, macro level. But what about at the State level?  County level?  City/Town level? Libertarians are not all anarchists. Government is best when it functions as cheap glue that binds us all together. I want the tension between individual rights and government authority to be as anxious as a short, heavy-set man in a skintight uniform with pants so tight the flap has pulled itself open and you can see the metal tangs of the zipper hanging on for dear life. 

If a local municipality, such as Asheville, votes to start an initiative that pays reparations with local taxes, then the state level should have no authority to tell them "No".  Local control is better, right? State funds should never contribute a single cent to a city funded project such as reparations without being voted on at the state level. An example of this would be "dry" counties. I lived in Lincoln County when it was a "dry" county. Nonalcoholic beverages could not be sold within the county. Should the *State* Legislature supersede what the county citizens voted for? Local control is better, right?

A person that does not live in Asheville should have ZERO opinion on what happens in Asheville. Carpetbagging applies at all levels. As a North Carolinian, I will not entertain a single opinion about North Carolina from someone outside of North Carolina. Those dayumed Yankees. Local control is better, right? If Asheville wants to have reparations and go through the process of reparations then let the people of Asheville have the self determination to do so. I don't live in Asheville therefore I have no representation in Asheville.

"Tyranny by the minority" is a popular saying in our culture. Likewise, "Tyranny by the majority"...

In Federalist #10, Madison warns about the dangers of groups of citizens united by interests contrary to the rights of others or the common good. Whether its differences in wealth, opinions, religion, economy, etc, a peoples from afar and not represented locally should not dictate the affairs of the locals. The beauty of the United States is our beloved 1rst Amendment which means EVERYONE is allowed to voice their opinion. That is Liberty. Consensus can be difficult. In the absence of consensus at the state level, if a local county or city/town has consensus then they should be able to act.

A large Republic, with many competing interests, is the best defense to tyranny. The Duopoly is tyranny, eliminating choice and competing interests from Government representation. I have more choices in purchasing plain white t-shirts than political parties. The goal of capitalism is to create competition in the markets and rid the system of monopolies and poor performance.  The Duopoly is the monopoly.  A healthy Republic makes it harder for any one faction to dominate. A test if our Republic was healthy our local elections would be non partisan. 

"Liberty is to faction what air is to fire." James Madison

State Rights, right? County Rights, right? City Rights, Right? Local Control is better, right? Individual Rights, Right?

Do we perceive this chain to function as Top -> Down OR Bottom -> Up? 

by: Anonymous

A Joyful Hope

Although I cannot find the original quote, it might have been Mark Twain late in life who said, “In our day and country, the poor are unique. They do not see themselves as bitterly impoverished which they ought, but instead have a joyful hope that they are in the embarrassing predicament of simply not yet being rich.” Whereas I once loved this quote for capturing the good news of free markets creating upward mobility, I am starting to see a darker side to the quote’s meaning. For those who contemplate poverty the way Mark Twain did, the good news of liberty does not suffice.

As the 20th century advanced, gradually, the poor did indeed begin to lose their joyful hope and adopt the bitterness Mr. Twain spoke of. Like Mark Twain before them, they eventually experienced the greater wealth upward mobility afforded them, but this gave them a fear of losing what they had adjusted their lifestyle to, and made them notice the depth of contrast between living poor and living wealthier. It is tragic, then, that their newfound fear drove them to vote against the very same freedom policies that created their “rags to riches” family story in favor of centralized government and FDR’s New Deal. The tragedy was that this only extended their poverty in the 1930s and 40s, yet they chose to continue to view poverty with enough loathing to remain stubborn.

I wish I could say that the under-appreciation for liberty that some in Ayn Rand’s generation fought against eventually subsided, but sadly, it did not. Even in the 1980s at the time Ayn Rand died and despite the formation of the Libertarian Party, America treated liberty like an afterthought, and they still do. Our battle to bring back that joyful hope continues, but we need to ask ourselves why we have continued to lose this fight despite being in-the-know.

Reputation: Our Relationship with the Private Sector

We Libertarians have a large reputation problem. Although this is in part because our enemies throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, some critiques have effectively made us seem at a distance like weirdos and simpletons to keep away from. Despite how despicable it was in 2016 when they belittled us for not knowing the city of Aleppo, or this past year when they implied we were pedophiles for taking an interest in age-related laws, I find that most of their critiques offer a valuable clue into our real reputation.

One critique in particular has especially piqued my interest: our “flawed” relationship with the private sector. A common, popular depiction of Libertarians I see could be described like the quote from earlier but with a twist: not only do they accuse us of being diluted into thinking poverty is a short stop on the way to riches, they accuse us of putting our undying trust in corporations to do the heavy lifting of assisting us with our dream to become rich. What’s more is that they often imply we dream of a world in which the corporations have boots on the necks of common folks as if we are blind to it being no better than government tyranny. Sometimes this is a diversionary tactic to get people to shut up about the boots which are already on the necks of the common folk, but sometimes this comes from those same common folk who are sick and tired of boots being on their neck and have the fear that we won’t sufficiently lift all boots. They are bitterly and hopelessly of the opinion that the boots are here to stay.

There is some truth to their skepticism of us. A post surfaced on X in Summer of 2024 by an extreme Anarchy-Capitalist who glowingly touted no government is necessary and implied many other people besides himself want a future in which the court system and police are entirely privatized such that you will need to pay for the enforcement of your rights and your justice, outlining how such a system would work using a picture book formatting. Well, that post went viral, more viral than most things Libertarians laboriously said all throughout the entire election year, and you better believe the enormous number of eyes on that post poisoned tens of thousands of voters into laughingly rejecting the lot of us. Voters are constantly looking for proof to reject a foreign political philosophy and prefer confirmation bias because it saves them from the hardship of thinking. It only takes a small dose of elixir to poison an entire well.

The voters are made uncomfortable by the possibility that we, no matter how much in the minority, are correct. Siding with us means descending into a minority, and there is nothing fun about joining an uphill battle. Indeed, not all of us seek a world which permits boots on anyone’s neck. We believe in the NAP and therefore a justification for a limited government that has few responsibilities beyond doing its best to enforce the rights and justice of people within the jurisdiction. What makes us a big tent is our tolerance for disagreements on how many rights humankind has, what constitutes injustice, how decentralized should government be, and numerating the additional responsibilities of government. Seen through that lens, it is clear we oppose (or should oppose) tyranny of all forms!

What the voters don’t seem to understand is that industries have a corrupt relationship with the present elected politicians from both of the Major Parties. The NC Department of Commerce, for example, exists primarily to make corrupt, unfair deals with an arbitrary selection of entities within various industries to obtain the coveted title of “best state for business.” All-the-while, they sweep under the rug that such a title cannot coexist with being the “best state for employees” or “best state to live in.” So dedicated are they that they will use eminent domain to take your neighborhood and your local church land to bulldoze and convert into an automotive factory so as to seem like the kind of politicians who get things done and potentially get money put into their back pocket from the grateful automotive business.

I worry that when Libertarians ascend to power on a State-level, we’ll be tempted by the same corrupting force, for a different reason. Republicans and Democrats simply want the popularity and the fortune that comes with bowing down to businesses, but Libertarians have such a bias in favor of the private sector that perhaps a colleague or two will sell out and want less in return. You and I might be correct to have fond feelings for companies like Amazon, which have undoubtedly achieved many good outcomes for our state, but always remember that this is no excuse for wielding power to boost their success further. I believe Libertarians who hate the Left are especially at risk of falling into the contrarian attitude of overly siding with businesspersons whenever the Left scapegoats them. This is the difference between being “pro-business” and being “pro-people.”

In the US, Canada, the UK, and elsewhere, political parties stress policies for working individuals. In January, a far-left party in Canada nearly surpassed polling popularity of Canada’s left-of-center party with their rallying cry being opposition to “the binding arbitration [which ended] a work stoppage at Canada's largest railways.” In a further contrast, they wanted to give all workers universal dental care, a whole step beyond universal “free” healthcare, which Canada already has. For those there who wish their job came with more benefits and the freedom to go on strike if the cause is good, they felt heard. The NDP’s momentum collapsed when a foreign threat to their international trade and sovereignty upended priorities, but that did not suddenly stop them from caring about workers, instead this is par for the course in a first-past-the-post voting system.

This might be among our greatest missed opportunities as a party. Although it is true that our candidates have a healthy understanding of bird’s-eye-view macroeconomics, we rarely share the same thinking as the voters who look at it all from a personal, ground-level view. Workers frequently feel unheard, especially when times are good overall but not for them or their family or friends. To hear their grumbles about “neoliberalism,” you realize they see themselves as living in a new Gilded Age which looks fine on the surface but quietly rots inside. On any day that libertarians celebrate and identify our influence on the success of the stock market and our GDP, somewhere in North Carolina is a family man who just lost his job, tearfully festering on all the little things that are horribly wrong with the business climate in our country. On that same day in the Tar Heel State, someone is toiling away at a job and feels hopelessly stuck, disrespected, and resentful of company leadership.

Indeed, because times are good here and have been almost without exception since World War Two, companies and rich businesspeople have been able to get away with right violations of workers, white-collar crimes, and corrupt deals with government. Our success likewise explains why companies have been able to absorb unfair attacks from publicity-seeking politicians yet survive. But between the former and the latter, I only hear libertarians decry the latter. If, however, the good times ever end, suddenly that bitter family man between jobs and hopeless worker will no longer be in the minority, thus it will be too late to address their demands. Whether the gilded outer layer ever cracks to reveal an ugly inside is not a question of if but when.

Polls often ask the question, “Does politician X or political party Y care about the problems I go through?” and I have read the Republicans have caught up to the Democrats on this matter. The pollsters never bother to ask this question about Libertarians, and that is good because it might have been damning negative publicity for us. For as much as I criticize both sides of our dreaded Uniparty, I must admit that we could learn something from how they have tapped into popular resentment. Republicans exaggerate the death of manufacturing jobs in America and fearmonger about the very real competition for jobs against talented immigrants. Democrats tap into our jealousy of rich-beyond-necessity CEOs, want to make it easier for minorities and women to get a job, and force benefits on businesses, such as more time off for pregnant couples. Although Libertarians want to lower income taxes, so do the Republicans; that really steals our thunder and leaves us without much to point to for the purpose of winning workers over. Often, we rant till the cows come home that tariffs by tyrants and the very existence of the minimum wage choke our economy, yet listeners ultimately fail to piece together how either affects them.

The point, of course, is not to adapt their tactics of lying and bribing residents with their own money but to see how much it means to voters to feel understood. Feeling understood might be so rare and valuable that it explains the Socialists and core of MAGA voters cling endlessly to a sinking ship like members of a cult; in a flawed world, hope is like a drug. Therefore, we Libertarians need to champion policies that resonate with the workers of our state. I admit to not having all the answers, but I have suggestions for where we can start.

Steps Towards Becoming Pro-People

Foremost, we need to openly reject a kind of pure Anarchy that treats freedom as a game of chance instead of a guarantee; the wealth in your possession is not purely skill-acquired and is therefore insufficient for ensuring justice. Any Anarchist who does not believe government has a right to exist by means of consent and voluntary funding is so thoroughly iconoclastic as to be unworthy of membership in the Libertarian Party. Not only is this necessary, it would be a publicity win for us much the same way it was pivotal for Obama in the 2008 election when he loudly distanced himself from his pastor, who was a more radical Leftist than himself, thereby convincing the voters that Obama was not an unreasonable extremist.

The working-age population in America is a powerful voting bloc; winning an election runs through their approval. People who work jobs are only a little more likely than the retired population to want radical change, and radical voters overall are more-or-less eclipsed by people who prefer greater moderation. In early 2021, Gallup found that 37% of most voters averaged together wanted their preferred party to become more radical. This past February, that percentage has fluctuated to become even smaller, sitting at 28.5%. Conversely, 29% of those voters in 2021 wanted their preferred party to move towards moderation, and now that percentage is 39.5%. Thus, the push for a move towards the center of the political spectrum has now gotten even louder among self-identifying moderates. Our Party is in a good position to seize this opportunity to pull them, but we are only going to win voters if our public rhetoric meets them at least halfway.

Do remember that there is a difference between what we announce and believe, and what we plan to do tomorrow versus what we plan to do after that if they like what we do tomorrow. Crucially, the voters and even the vocal Libertarians often fail to outline the differences between these, and this is especially important when the voters cannot look back at past NC Libertarians to get a general idea of how much change we will attempt in a term. I have even heard some voters assume everything we talk about is what we are bragging we will accomplish in a single term no matter the circumstance. If multiple people are getting the impression we think Rome can be built in a day, the voters must be confused by our lack of boundaries. We need to outline our short-term goals every so often. Although candidates will complain about wanting immense freedom to campaign on anything and everything, some amount of coordination and boundaries (or at least a state-level plan) is needed to create order.

For similar reasons, we need to elect at least two people to civil service, no matter how small and insignificant, so that we can spotlight those people’s activities and brag about both their accomplishments and the ways they are just like the average voter: hard working, not especially poor or wealthy, level-headed, and concerned with kitchen-table issues. And if we cannot get elected, we should take matters into our own hands by engaging in community service openly as Libertarians, much like when the Cape Fear Libertarian Party affiliate adopted a highway to clean up its litter. This is a step I believe should never be skipped, and yet I fear if you ask Libertarians what they would rather do next, they would prefer to run for office as a Congressperson and lose for the third election cycle in a row rather than get their hands dirty with litter pickup!

We need to advocate a crackdown against white-collar crime and look for ways to offer hard-working masses something through liberty. I spoke about the beauty of free market’s giving anyone upward mobility and an ideal economy. I think that is something we need to revisit and stress, while clarifying that even in a free market, economic downturns are inevitable and short-lived. We could explain how the constant printing of money perpetually weakens their wages because if money is constantly being inflated, their wage are constantly a little behind the times. We could explain that the prosperity and competition of the whole industry lead to better conditions and bargaining power for its workers! We could adamantly defend their right to a jury of their peers, their right to sue companies, and other such things that employers get workers to waive away with the help of scheming lawyers.

In equal measure, perhaps we should spend a little less time getting enraged that the wealthiest people on earth have to pay a different and higher tax rate when they already have enough steady income regardless to have greater freedom than the rest of us by orders of magnitude! Federal and State income taxes, after all, are not so high that a decrease to the tax brackets is going to reduce government debt, as the Laffer Curve shows. Moving our country further towards bankruptcy is scarier to the average worker than hearing that their wealthy-beyond-belief boss will have to endure a small tax increase or the lack of any change to their taxes. Even among Libertarian voters, if you ask them who they have in mind when they shout “taxation is theft,” it’s unlikely they will name their company’s CEO unless they happen to be self-employed, a small demographic.

Dare To Imagine

I agree it is good that we champion everyone’s freedom and rights out of an all-encompassing, principled respect for the dignity of humanity. However, if we choose to be contrarians who openly fret often about tiny minorities, moral scoundrels, and the business-owning richest gentry, we risk alienating the larger demographics by giving them the impression we are as much in a bubble as the extremists of the rival parties. In trying to make a narrow case for Populism, I only seek to remind you that we should dare to imagine a world in which we don’t have to compromise our beliefs long-term yet find a way to win the enthusiasm of the masses through crafting a short-term plan that piques their interest. Once we earn their trust, then we can attempt the controversial things we dream of. I believe this is possible, and I desire for us to take that mission seriously.

by: Phil Jacobson, LPNC Messaging Committee and Judiciary Board

LPNC supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to possess and to openly carry firearms for the purpose of defending persons and property. Additionally, we believe that a citizen who openly carries a firearm and who also agrees to follow well formulated regulations should be granted an extra degree of credibility in a court of law. In most jurisdictions, a government-designated police officer is usually granted this presumption. LPNC supports extending this presumption to all citizens who follow safe handling and usage procedures for firearms, and use them in a defensive or protective manner. 

We believe that no citizen should be compelled to join with others for common defense. But we also believe that individual citizens have a right to join with others to form voluntary self-defense organizations. These organizations may authorize armed patrols of specific real estate.  They may provide firearms safety education. They may coordinate protective services for persons and property. On occasion, they may provide defense against other organizations, foreign or domestic. It may even come to pass that their very existence can provide citizens with a counter to neglect or abuse by government agencies. But a great deal of organized defense will occur at a very local level. A neighborhood watch is an example of a voluntary self-defense organization. Commercial security firms, given their relationships with customers, also constitute a form of non-government voluntary organized defense.  

All of the above armed defense organizations (including government police) rely on the right of their individual members to keep and bear arms. To best serve the interests of their members and the community at large, LPNC strongly encourages all armed defense organizations to have strong rules of engagement both for training and for active patrols. These rules should be comprehensive, discourage aggression, and be clearly articulated and repeated =It is generally recognized that government police and military personnel SHOULD have such internal regulations, though we recognize that this is not always the practice. LPNC views private voluntary defense organizations the same way.  

LPNC views even non-government organizations as a form of militia which should be regulated via voluntary agreements between members. The concept of a militia should extend beyond units organized by the various states of the federal union. In earlier times, it was common for isolated communities to be self-sufficient with regard to armed self defense, and to function as an organized militia. We see units such as (but not limited to) modern neighborhood watch organizations as being in this same tradition. We see them, if they endorse armed defense by their members, as a form of militia. We strongly encourage them to be well regulated militias. Again, courts of law tend to give credibility to well regulated government police, and we believe that the same credibility should be accorded to members of any well regulated militia.   

Consider two publicly prominent stories where this was NOT the case: those of George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. 

George Zimmerman was a member of a neighborhood watch. As part of this membership, George carried a loaded pistol during patrols of the neighborhood. One evening while on patrol George observed an individual, Trevon Martin, walking in the neighborhood. Zimmerman did not recognize Martin as a local resident, and suspected Martin of having criminal intentions. At one point Zimmerman phoned the local government police to report his suspicions. The police asked Zimmerman not to engage the suspect physically. Zimmerman felt that this advice could be ignored, and pursued Martin. The result was a physical struggle between Zimmerman and Martin, during which Zimmerman’s weapon discharged, resulting in Martin’s death.   

Zimmerman’s account of the event was that he had feared for his life, claiming that Martin had attacked him, unprovoked. Martin was later confirmed to have been living legally in one of the neighborhood residences, with every right to walk where Zimmerman had seen him. Since no evidence beyond Zimmerman’s word was available to challenge the story, Zimmerman’s true guilt or innocence was impossible to prove. 

Had Zimmerman been required to obey instructions by the government police, Martin would likely have survived the evening’s events. But Zimmerman’s authority to patrol the neighborhood did not require him to follow such instructions. Had Zimmerman been wearing a working and active video body camera, doubts about his description of the encounter would likely have been confirmed or refuted. But no part of Zimmerman’s authority to conduct an armed patrol required him to provide such evidence of his honesty. 

Kyle Rittenhouse joined a group of individuals who volunteered to serve as armed guards for a piece of commercial real estate, in response to the perceived threat of looting during a major protest event. Kyle decided, apparently on his own, to bring both a semi-automatic rifle and a first aid kit to the event. His stated intent was to provide both armed defense and medical assistance, as might be required. At one point Kyle witnessed what he thought was an injured member of the protest group, some distance beyond the perimeter he was guarding. Again, on his own initiative, it would appear, Kyle decided to leave the defense perimeter and go into the area occupied by these protesters so he could offer first aid. Kyle was not wearing an armband or other symbol to identify himself as a medic. Kyle retained his loaded rifle, and to all around him would have appeared as an infantry soldier, not as a medical technician. He would have looked like any other member of the armed group he had been standing with earlier. Thus, he was quickly misidentified by some of the protesters as an armed threat, rather than as someone offering medical assistance. Certain protesters, who were also armed, responded to Kyle as if he presented a violent threat to their group. A violent conflict ensued which has received significant coverage by news organizations. 

It appears that the armed group which Kyle joined that night was seen by Kyle as a functioning militia. Even so, it did not function as a well regulated militia. It did not provide Kyle with some important guidance. When armed government units deploy during times of civil disturbance, there is no mixture of identity between armed officers and medical personnel covering the same event. Each wears a distinct uniform. The medics don’t carry rifles. 

Kyle’s militia should have had similar concerns. The other militia members should, as a standard procedure, have required Kyle to leave his rifle at the defense perimeter when he chose to offer medical assistance to someone outside the defense perimeter. Should it have been deemed too dangerous to go out unarmed, Kyle’s militia should have instructed Kyle to stay within the militia’s defense perimeter. Ideally, every member of Kyle’s militia should have accepted and learned to follow these and other rules as standard tactical procedures. When someone unfamiliar with these procedures, such as Kyle, wanted to join the militia, they should have been supervised and instructed by a militia member who was familiar with the procedures. Had such provisions been in place, had Kyle joined a well regulated militia, it would have been far less likely that any gun violence would have occurred. 

Kyle was fortunate in one respect. Much of his behavior that night was recorded in videos taken with personal cell phones. Even so, had Kyle himself been wearing a body camera his story might have been more complete. Kyle’s own camera would also have provided a form of insurance, providing him with supporting evidence in a courtroom, even if other videos had not been available. 

Among other job regulations many jurisdictions require police to accept a responsibility to wear and operate body cameras. LPNC supports giving government police this and other responsibilities in exchange for being granted a presumption of good intent. We also encourage any private citizen, when exercising their right to openly carry a firearm, to wear a body camera. We support giving citizens who do so a similar presumption of good intent to that given government police. 

Additionally, we support the right of all citizens to use video cameras in public places. It should be unremarkable that an (apparently) unarmed citizen is wearing the same kind of body camera that police use. We believe that in many situations the deterrent power of a camera can be at least as useful as a firearm, if not more so. A militia which skillfully employed a combination of cameras and firearms would often have an advantage, both in the field and in a courtroom, over a force whose actions were less well documented. Even a citizen militia composed entirely of unarmed individuals operating cameras in coordination would be quite impactful at times. 

A complete list of well formulated regulations is beyond the scope of this essay, but LPNC encourages juries and officers of the court to look with favor on government police, militia members and unaffiliated individual citizens who adopt and follow well formulated regulations. Ultimately this is about more than the law. It is about community perceptions. We do not believe that a community can be at its safest when firearms are a government monopoly. But we also believe that citizens will neither feel safe nor be safe if those who do carry firearms are not expected to respect this carry as a serious responsibility. We believe that this sense of responsibility must be cultivated as a community value, where individuals are held to account by the free flow of information and an honest system of dispute resolution. A critical part of such a system would be the widely held belief in a well regulated militia.