Tag: jeff sessions

Christie Could Be Worse on Marijuana Than Jeff Sessions

By Max Bibeau | United States

On November 7, in the aftermath of an intense midterm election season, Americans could finally breathe a sigh of relief. And, as if this relief wasn’t enough, Trump decided to give America a little gift: Jeff Sessions’ resignation.

While many have been celebrating this news, it may still be a bit too soon. Trump is reportedly considering his longtime friend and fellow 2016 Presidential Candidate to replace Sessions – Governor Chris Christie.

Christie, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2016, did not have much success during the primaries and ended up endorsing President Trump after dropping out of the election in February. Christie has been repeatedly criticized for his long absences from his home state and for his “Bridgegate” scandal, which began as long ago as 2013.

Sessions is well known for his anti-drug stances, advocating for a resurgence in drug education such as in the 80s and 90s, stating that marijuana is “slightly less awful” than heroin, and that “using drugs will destroy your life.” Needless to say, Sessions adamantly opposes the legalization or even decriminalization of any currently illegal drug. He even reversed an Obama era policy in order to encourage federal law enforcement agents to crack down on marijuana use, even in legal states.

Christie, while almost 20 years younger than Sessions, seems to share his hyper-traditionalist mindset. Christie has repeatedly stated that marijuana should never be legalized for medicinal or recreational purposes, and has deemed any profits made from the legal marijuana industry “blood money.” He made it clear back in 2015 that he would never put the “lives of children and citizens at risk to put a little more money into the state coffers,” which might be a noble sentiment if marijuana had caused even a single overdose death in the last year. 

Sessions and Christie both share a similar anti-drug sentiment. But given a few past statements, it’s very possible that Christie may take a more direct approach to opposing marijuana legalization, even in states that have already legalized the drug for medicinal or recreational purposes.

In 2015, Christie was asked whether or not he would enforce federal drug laws. His response was “absolutely. I will crack down and not permit it.” He went on immediately to say that “marijuana is a gateway drug. We have an enormous addiction problem in this country. And we need to send very clear leadership from the White House on down through the federal law enforcement. Marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law. And the states should not be permitted to sell it and profit from it.”

While Sessions was more bark than bite, only implementing one or two federal changes to marijuana policy, Christie seems like he will plan to take a much more aggressive route, actively stopping businesses and farms from supplying their product. If Christie follows through on his word, direct conflict between federal law enforcement and marijuana institutions could be likely in the future.

So, while many considered Sessions the worst possible Attorney General for drug legalization, none should celebrate his resignation yet – his replacement could be far worse.

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source


What the Left and Right Ought to Learn From the Immigration Debacle

By Atilla Sulker | United States

Like many contemporary issues, the debacle regarding immigration and the separation of immigrant families has become a polarizing and divisive issue in America. Ideologues on the left and the right both spew propaganda to try to discredit the other side, and as a result, the political scene has become nastier and further fractured. Those on the left and the establishment leaning right have become demagogues and have made this an emotional issue, while those on the populist right blindly support the protocols set by the Attorney General and others. The issue is far from over, but there is a more fundamental lesson that must be learned from this fiasco.

It is interesting that both sides have decided to focus so carefully on the separation of immigrant children from their parents, yet they have not bothered to pay attention to what I see as the domestic equivalent to this. And this is the gradual alienation of children here in America from their parents, which has taken multiple forms. The current issue with immigration can be very disheartening, but what good is it to set any moral standards in regards to immigrants, when we don’t apply this same thinking to our own children. This whole debate has ultimately distracted people from what domestic institutions have been doing both explicitly and implicitly. Humane treatment from any administration or government can not be expected if we can’t even set these standards for ourselves.


Let us look at the Child Protection Services and examine its assumption of children from parents. In a paper written by Professor Paul Chill titled “Burden of Proof Begone”, Chill finds that of the over 100,000 children removed from their families in 2001, over one-third of them were later found to never have been mistreated or abused. Chill also recognizes that this is coupled with the fact that the definition for mistreatment is very broad. “Reasonable cause” is enough to bring the CPS knocking at your door. I don’t mean to digress, but this sort of “reasonable suspicion overriding probable cause” approach was used under the Patriot Act in a post 9/11 world. The assuming of such powers by the CPS presents a very similar case. It is yet another way in which the state is intruding into our lives.

The fundamental problem with such organizations as the CPS and the Department of Children and Families is that the state practically assumes ownership of children. It is one thing to enforce the non-aggression principle and punish parents who have abused children. It is another thing to give the state the authority to assume ownership of our children. Even if the moral argument against the state is not sufficient, practically speaking, the utter inefficiency of the CPS based on the statistics presents a good argument against government assuming such a role. I think it is safe to ask the question “ do parents really own their children?”.


These explicit means are indeed something we must examine, but the government has also found a way to implicitly isolate the child from the parent. And this is the gradually increasing assumption of monopoly powers in schooling by the government. It may seem like an absurd statement at first to the typical sheep who obey their government masters, but the filtering and controlling of ideas is indeed a very powerful tool that the state uses, and it is especially useful for children, who possess young and fertile minds. Sheer military power is not enough for the state to keep control over its people. The state must also indoctrinate its subjects in its ideas. North Korea provides an excellent case study of how this indoctrination is used to maintain order.

Since I am in the public schooling system right now, I have had direct and recent experience in regards to this indoctrination. I had one teacher in my junior year in high school who would constantly make fun of me and embarrass me in class on a near daily basis for not agreeing with her progressive agenda. I didn’t mind and I understood she was joking around as well, but this goes to show you what kind of people are in the public school system. They are close-minded, safe space junkies. The censoring and suppression of ideas becomes nearly immediate when the discussion becomes just a little controversial. There was another teacher who was an ardent feminist that would make us read feminist articles, and only such articles. I don’t mind teachers discussing politics with students, but when their politics affect the information that they feed to the students, it becomes a problem. I believe it is crucial that all perspectives are considered.

So we have now established the premise that government schooling can at its most extreme be terribly biased. So what about homeschooling? Even then, the state has supervision over what must be taught to the students by their parents. Occasional evaluations are administered by the state to see how well a student has been indoctrinated by the ideas pushed forward by the state. According to an article written by Lynn Hatter in WFSU in 2013, a couple faced 10 charges that could put them in jail for up to 60 days per charge. And why did they face these charges? According to the state, their children had not been properly indoctrinated. The story occurred here in Leon County, Florida. Such cases are not necessarily rare; they can happen where you live too. I’m all for education, but what I am against is the government deciding what standards the education must conform with, and in such a way assuming even more ownership of children. It presents yet another example of the state alienating the child from the parent, even if doing so implicitly.

Jeff Sessions

A final point I want to make is in regards to the Attorney General’s comments in comparing the bringing of children across the border to smuggling. Sessions claims that since the act of bringing immigrant children across the border can be likened unto smuggling, the state has the right to confiscate the children. In making such a claim, Sessions is taking the stance of a legal positivist. And all those who support such a policy are doing the same. In making this claim, the Attorney General is assuming that it is not wrong for the government to confiscate money and personal belongings from domestic citizens, and he is, therefore, extending this notion even further by applying it to immigration. His application of this doctrine to immigration assumes that he first applies it to domestic protocols, then protocols in regards to immigrants.

A large part of the populist right-wing takes this legal positivist stance regarding immigration and load of other issues, all this being influenced by strong nationalism. The left wing, however, is not exempt from any criticism. They claim to be such great supporters of civil liberties, but support to censorship of websites and organizations that they deem “too extreme” or “too far right”.

Remembering Home

I think that the immigration controversy is certainly an issue that has to be addressed properly and is not something that can be solved overnight, but it is fallacious to assess that situation without even assessing what is going on here at home. We can not ignore the ways in which the state is alienating the child from his or her parents, both explicitly and implicitly. If we don’t have a sound foundation of ideas regarding how we, the citizens of the United States ought to be treated, what good is it to try to solve the current controversy. We must treat others in the same way that we want to be treated, and if this doctrine is to be held true, immigrants won’t get treated any better. If anything, this debacle has revealed a plethora of inconsistencies on both the left and right.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Why Does Jeff Sessions Hate Herb?

Clint Sharp|United States

It’s no secret that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is strongly opposed to the legalization of marijuana. In fact, the former U.S Senator’s staunch rejection of cannabis has cemented him in the minds of pro-weed individuals and groups across the country as the single greatest threat to their cause that currently exists. Upon taking office as the Secretary of the Department of Justice, Sessions wasted no time in enacting his plan to keep the Devil’s lettuce out of the hands of citizens. In order to do this, Sessions redacted several Obama-era guidances that allowed states to legalize marijuana, with little to no interference from the federal government. Love him or hate him, Obama’s actions fell in line with the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This left many, both conservative and liberal alike, with a bad taste in their mouth for Sessions. However, this wasn’t the first time that Sessions has expressed his resentment for marijuana.

The earliest known instance of Sessions’ hate for weed occurred in 1986 while he was trying to become the District Court judge for the South District of Alabama. Here, a fellow attorney by the name of Thomas Figures, testified against Sessions for saying that he thought the Ku Klux Klan was “OK until I found out they smoked pot”. This statement, in conjunction with other negative testimonies, resulted in the withdrawal of his nomination to the district court. While he later said that he meant it as a joke, it exposed his misconstrued priorities to the nation and set the standard his future marijuana policies. Later, at a Senate drug hearing in April 2016, Sessions made repeatedly attacked marijuana and the users of the plant, stating “Good people don’t smoke pot”, angering those who support the legalization of pot, as well as disregarding those who use marijuana medicinally.

It is unclear what birthed Jeff Sessions’ hatred for cannabis, but what is clear is the threat that he may pose to the booming legal weed business. Unless we do something to prevent him from infringing on state’s rights, we may soon be living in Sessions’ dream. One where weed is illegal and a highly valuable resource is left discarded, waiting for those wise enough to recognize its power to use it.

Happy 4/20 everybody!

Featured Image Source

Oklahoma Gubernatorial Candidate Hopes To Shut Down Jeff Sessions’s Influence

By John Keller | United States
Rex Lawhorn is a small business manager that is seeking the Libertarian nomination for governor of Oklahoma, where he hopes to bring about reform to restore liberty in Oklahoma, and hopefully be a part of the movement to restore freedom in America.
Keller: You are running for governor of Oklahoma. What inspired you to pursue a career in politics and seek this office?
Lawhorn: I never aspired to be a politician.  I’ve been interested in the process my whole life, and my proclivity toward economics makes public policy a natural area of interest, but as far as being in the spotlight?  No, that was never my intent.  However, Oklahoma has a relatively young party, and there were no voices standing up.  This is a ballot access race for us, so the Live Free team felt compelled to recruit someone. 
I, more or less, fit the profile of a politician, and I have an exceptional grasp on policy and libertarian principles, so they recruited me.
We never expected this to be a winnable race, but we’ve been surprised at the amazing reception we’ve received from Oklahomans.  It only took us three months to dive into this, full-time, and try to turn Oklahoma gold.  That 2.5% goal became 30% overnight.
Keller: You are running as a libertarian. There are many misconceptions about what a libertarian is, as people from anarchist Adam Kokesh to neo-conservative John Bolton have called themselves a libertarian. What is a libertarian and what attracted you to its message?
Lawhorn: I’m going to change the wording of the question a little bit. I am a libertarian, as opposed to running as one, and that’s an important distinction. Oklahoma has the same issue, where many people call themselves Libertarian but don’t actually grasp the meaning.
Most people take their own rights into primary consideration, not recognizing that giving the state the authority to oppress anyone gives them license to oppress everyone – and the state takes every opportunity to do so. A libertarian recognizes that basic truth and advocates for all rights for all people, all the time.
A libertarian candidate of any color should be advocating for the absolute minimum governmental restrictions on an individual’s day-to-day life, so long as no one else is harmed in the process.
Keller: Why is the time now for a libertarian governor in Oklahoma?
Lawhorn: Because though both the old parties are recognized in Oklahoma, we really only had one until the LP gained recognition. Very few will argue that both parties are the same old tax and spend, throw water into a leaky bucket, don’t ever fix anything, don’t care about the people conglomerates that have no interest in maximizing individual opportunity.
It’s been bad enough for long enough, that record numbers of citizens here have become engaged in the process, and on top of that, they are looking for someone to break the stranglehold the legislature has placed on the economy and the lives of Oklahomans. I’ve not seen a climate so ripe for liberty as Oklahoma is right now in the 20 years I’ve followed policy closely.
Keller: Important to voters is where candidates stand on key issues. What are the three most important policies to you that define your platform?
Lawhorn: The three main areas I focus on are educational opportunity, economic diversification, and criminal justice reform. Those don’t just define my platform but are the largest issues our state faces. We have close to the worst education system in the country, despite spending near the median in per-pupil spending. It’s an antiquated industrial model that is failing all of our students, and they don’t have options, primarily due to legal restrictions.
Add into that the state formula crippling private school growth and opportunity, and we have what most anti-choice advocates fear – a system that bleeds the poor to provide luxury to the wealthy. My plan fixes this, pays our teachers a good wage, and provides exceptional options for every student, no matter their socioeconomic class. Next, our economy is highly invested in oil and gas and energy, in general, and they ignore the wealth of other natural resources.
That’s led to an economic climate of dependence on the price per barrel of oil, and it has bankrupted us. Our tax structure needs to make sure that every industry has equal treatment under the tax code and that Oklahoma is developing the employees and infrastructure to grow into a healthy economy. Finally, CJR is a hot-button issue in Oklahoma, as we incarcerate more than any other state.
It’s been a perennial issue for us, and we have learned that throwing addicts, mentally ill, and cannabis users in jail doesn’t help anything. 52% of our prison population has never committed an actual crime against any other citizen or property.
As much as 65% of our prisoner-citizens have a mental illness they’re being treated for. Jail isn’t the place for people like this. The state is just wasting money to feed taxpayer dollars to their friends in the private prison industry. There is no impetus to solve the issue until someone sits in the capital to make it a priority. That’s my job.
Keller: Recently there has been an increase in political dialogue over gun control. What do you have to contribute to this national dialogue?
Lawhorn: I have nothing more to contribute that hasn’t been said a million times already. The two most important things to remember is that gun control doesn’t reduce violence and those words “shall not be infringed”.
If they come to me with a proposal that addresses the real causes of the increase in violence, we can start a conversation. Until then, I’m unwilling to engage in even peripheral conversations about restricting the right of self-defense from anyone.
Keller: The Trump Administration has spent increasing effort to expand the power of the national government while weakening state authority. How do you plan to balance serving the people of Oklahoma with mandates from the Trump Administration?
Lawhorn: By utilizing 10th Amendment protections guaranteeing state authority over powers not enumerated in the Constitution. I plan to mostly ignore mandates coming from Washington DC unless they are returning plundered dollars back to the people that paid them.
It’s very difficult, as most of the federal overreach doesn’t come through the state, but rather bypasses the state and directly attacks the people. The only way that most of the problem can be ameliorated is through secession, and that’s a call that needs to come from the people.
That being said, my initial campaign promise was to be the shield for the people of the state from a government that has stepped way out of line. I intend to have an entire staff centered on making sure that I use every opportunity available to achieve that goal.
Keller: A key issue in the balance of power is the Drug War. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has increased the government “clamp down” on states with legal marijuana, whether recreational or medical. What do you believe is the solution to this growing issue?
Lawhorn: That’s an area that a governor can have a strong effect. With the cooperation of the sheriff departments in each county, we can prohibit federal legal activity from pursuing and prosecuting any victimless crime. I’ll ask them nicely to refrain because Oklahoma opts out.
If they don’t stop, I will tell them forcefully to back off. If they still don’t stop, I will activate the National Guard, and I will forcibly remove them. It’s a personal invasion of the people of the state that is preventable, and I’m fairly sure that not even Jeff Sessions is willing to do war over a plant.
Keller: If someone was interested in getting involved with your campaign, how would they go about getting involved?
Lawhorn: Stop by the web page, rexforgovernor2018.com and hit that volunteer button! While you’re at it give the ‘donate’ button a push and give whatever you can. This process isn’t cheap until a Libertarian can get in office and make the changes necessary. If I get into office, I will work as hard as I can to ensure no politician ever asks you to press a donate button, ever again! You can also come by my Facebook page, facebook.com/rexforgovernor2018, and participate in the debate, follow me on the campaign trail, hear and read my interviews, and even participate in one of my monthly live events, where I talk directly to anyone who wishes to show up and answer any question you like.
Keller: Do you have any final remarks to give to the readers?
Lawhorn: We are at a turning point in American politics, and never before has liberty had such a large and wide audience listening very close to see what we offer. Some people of our party are actively using that to promote their own self-interests and others are using it to spew hate and bile.
We can’t let this opportunity slip away from us. Educate yourself on the issues, and engage in meaningful, productive, and, most importantly, persuasive discussions about how liberty makes a difference! Be the change, and don’t waste your minutes in frustration and anger.
Use them to alleviate the frustration and anger that the uninitiated have which makes them hostile to us. Not since 1774 has the US felt more frustrated with the failures of government, and it’s time for them to have a real option. We are not the 3rd party. We are THE party, and it’s time we started acting like it and getting things done.
I would like to thank Rex Lawhorn for his time. Be sure to visit his website and follow him on Twitter and Facebook for all updates!

Bring Back Liberty – Nickolas Wildstar for California

By John Keller | United States

Nickolas Wildstar is a Wisconsin native who moved to California in 1999. After over a decade of office work, he is pursing the mission to “Bring Back Liberty to California”. To achieve this aim, Wildstar is currently running to be the next governor of California. 71 Republic’s John Keller spoke with Mr. Wildstar about his ideas and the campaign:

Keller: What inspired you to pursue political office?

Wildstar: Most of my inspiration to run for office has come from being moved by the wisdom of Dr. Ron Paul. His 2012 presidential campaign opened my eyes to the benefits of having a limited government that doesn’t operate on debt, and returning the power of governance back into the hands of the people where it belongs.  Being a black man, my life experience already included first hand abuses by police officers and the justice system, as well as economic inequality and other difficult circumstances stemming from statist policies, so when the Occupy and Anonymous movements came along, I got involved in community activism and protesting in the streets to demand change. Learning from Ron Paul and others seeking to elect him about how constitutional government was intended to hold official abuses in check, was the last bit of encouragement I needed to excite me to seek to become a public representative myself.  

Keller: In your words, what is libertarianism and why is it the right choice for California?

Wildstar: Libertarianism to me is an individual’s peaceful expression of their natural right to live freely and without restriction. As with classical liberalism, freedom is the heart of its value. While this traditional American sentiment is widely cherished, California is a special reflection of that since it is home to one of the most diverse and multicultural populations and largest entertainment industry in the country. People from all walks of life come here to live, start their careers and businesses, and pursue their dreams, because this is a state where they can come true. But it’s quickly becoming a nightmare for many, which is why I am fighting to bring back the principle of liberty and restore California’s promise as a place where you can be free to live out your dreams.

Keller: What encouraged you to run as a libertarian? What attracted you, and what should attract others, to the message of liberty?

Wildstar: From all of the face to face discussions I’ve had with people while campaigning throughout the state, I’ve come to find out that not many of them have a clue what liberty even means anymore, and this is mainly due to their being conditioned to believe that whenever a problem arises, there needs to be a government solution. I used to suffer from the same belief, and I’m sure there are people reading this who think some level of authoritarianism is needed. This very thought enslaves the mind. As people forget what is possible with freedom and lose the ability to dream, it results in restrictions that prevent innovation, creativity, ingenuity, and evolutions that advance humankind. We The People are not at liberty to act outside of the box anymore, and this is because a small minority are desperately working to keep the masses asleep. It’s time to wake up to the real world we’re living in and break out of the controlled existence into which we’ve been shackled. With liberty as the cornerstone of politics, there would be respect and protection of personal property and choices. There would be no taxes collected under threat of violence. There would be no mass incarceration. From how you work, to how you play, to your health and financial decisions, to the risks you take, to what you do with your own body, you would be allowed the autonomy that America’s founders, at their best, intended you to have. Only politicians who are committed to refusing to use the power of office to boss other people around and impose their own agendas, can make this happen, which is why Libertarians are best suited for the job, because they’ve been preaching this for years! If I were elected as a Libertarian governor, shackles would start coming off. People would still be free to sit there like they were chained to a post and had to wait for someone else’s permission or assistance in order to be able to do anything! I’m all about choice. But I believe most people would look and see the new freedoms around them and be attracted to experience a bit of it.

Keller: Recently a study was released that showed, when factoring in cost of living, California is the state with the highest poverty rate – despite spending the most money on poverty relief and welfare programs. As governor, what will you do to fix this issue?

Wildstar: I’d change the laws to let people help each other directly, instead of doing it through government. Good ideas don’t require aggression. The establishment gubernatorial candidates all want to keep taxing you and most of them want to add new taxes for one thing or another, but they have no viable plans to stop tax money being wastefully spent, misappropriated, and countless of politicians being caught red handed stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from public funds. If elected governor, I would immediately seek a completely independent and transparent audit of the state’s finances so the people of this state can see exactly where all of their tax dollars have been going. Reduce the personal income tax to 0% and end the double dip taxing of businesses. Reduce the property tax to zero and eliminate zoning laws to make buying or renting a home truly affordable again. I would also reduce the regressive sales tax to 7% statewide, so that the cost of everyday goods and services can be lower than ever before. With these reforms, more ordinary people will have the means to help themselves instead of relying on government, and Californians will be more ready and able to do their part to help the smaller number of less fortunate members of our communities who remain in poverty.     

Keller: The Trump Administration has declared a virtual policy war against California. How will you balance federal mandates and the need to govern California as a sovereign state?

Wildstar: By upholding the United States Constitution and incorporating federalism. California is one of the few states in which state tax money funds the majority of federal programs. Taxpayers in this state are being bilked by the Feds for much more than they are getting in return. Our state economy could easily be healthily revived were this line of credit cut off and would serve its residents best in the long run. Whether it’s the recreational use of marijuana or peaceful individuals migrating here from every corner of the world, the people of this state deserve a governor who will protect their rights as residents. My goal would be to end the subservient relationship with the federal government, and meet any actions reducing federal support or spending in California as punishment for exercising local control and upholding state law, with an equal response to reduce support and cooperation with the federal government. Washington D.C. needs to stay in Washington D.C.

Keller: In regards to the policy war, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has expanded the Drug War. Where do you stand on this issue?

Wildstar: It’s sad how the “War on Drugs” is still being waged on people despite decades of data proving it has done more to hurt more innocent people than to protect them from dangerous threats. I support decriminalization. People should never be incarcerated for victimless crimes. I’d advocate for such legislative changes here in California, and would defend the people of this state from any outside enforcement of law within state borders. Peaceful adults should be left to take responsibility for their own choices whether it be smoking marijuana, taking prescription drugs, or eating certain foods. Government should not be the nanny for grown human beings. We are capable of making our own decisions and our bodies belong to us.       

Keller: What three policies are most important to you to be implemented should you be elected to the governorship?

Wildstar: The majority of my agenda of getting the power back to the people would consist of seeking to reverse current policies which have harmed Californians and damaged the state as a whole. For a long time the practice of taxing and spending has been done without the people of the community who fund these efforts having any individual say in the matter. I would seek to change that so there would be no more surprise raids on your pocketbooks. One top priority for me would be putting measures in place to prevent taxation without representation. No one who cannot vote in a jurisdiction should not be required to pay taxes there. That was one of the fundamental principles of the Revolutionary War. Another priority would be ending welfare for the insurance industry by eliminating requirements to purchase insurance for things like cars, homes, and healthcare. A third top priority of mine is police reform. Removal of policies like the “Police Bill of Rights” would make police officers more accountable and restore honor to their traditional role as heroes and pillars of our community.   

Keller: If someone is interested how can they get involved with your campaign or the Libertarian Party?

Wildstar: Any way you can contribute right now is much appreciated. This campaign is a team effort, with many of the key campaign staff roles, like campaign manager, media coordinator, etc., being filled by multiple volunteers. The more dedicated people who are willing to jump in and lend a helping hand the more successful we can be! Even if you cannot get directly involved, talking with people about my campaign for governor in person and on social media gets that buzz going that will help make me a household name so I can be more effective at spreading the libertarian message and building the freedom movement. Most importantly at this time, with a $4000 filing fee due March 7th, I’m in need of donations! Libertarian candidates don’t get much funding and I myself am not a rich man so please do give what you can even if it’s only a few dollars, so I know you appreciate me being out there promoting what we stand for and want that to continue. To make a donation to my campaign, visit my website Wildstar2018.com. If you believe people have the right to live as they choose so long as they do not initiate force or fraud against others, please also become a member of the Libertarian Party and come to the state convention in Long Beach this April where you can vote to endorse me. I also encourage you to get involved with your local party chapter. You can support their activism and attend local meetings whether or not you are a member. Like the system of federalism I’m seeking to restore, the Libertarian Party is made up of affiliate parties in each state which are independent from the national Libertarian Party. You can join the California LP at LPC.org, and the national Libertarian Party at LP.org.

Keller: Do you have any final remarks for the readers?

Wildstar: There are many more things I would love to talk about and share with your readers like jury nullification, the common law tradition and how the courts have gotten away from it to the detriment of liberty, the whole fiat currency house of cards, etc., but doing some of these topics justice would take more space than we have here. I encourage curious readers to do their own research. This Matrix of a world we live in has a lot of interesting rabbit holes! But if you decide to go exploring down any of them, try to keep your eye on the big picture. We are at a critical time in history. Events are accelerating, and rapid technological advances have the potential to give us a brighter future we can scarcely imagine. But if we don’t stand up and resist government control, these changes could also take us down the road toward a police state. We must stop this from happening, and realize the possibility of freedom without undergoing the suffering of chaos and war. If we can successfully stand up for our rights using the democratic system today, flawed as it is, our future won’t have to involve battling to overcome increasing poverty and inequality, diminishing opportunities, or tyrannical control. It’s up to us today to bring about the necessary shifts that will liberate our nation and spare future generations’ untold agony and hardships. Vote Libertarian and be the pioneers of a revolution that will show the world what a constitutional republic looks like can be. Together we can do it, and we will!

I would like to thank Nickolas Wildstar for his time in conducting this interview. If you would like to get involved or want to have further dialogue with him please visit Wildstar2018.com.