Communications Office for President Kyle Allred
-
Who's Online (See full list)
-
Latest VGS News
-
Vox Libertatis Freedom Index 2025 Recap It has been one full year under a Republican President and Senate and, as we have mentioned, it is getting harder to tell where Democrats end and Republicans begin. From pricing workers out of a job to breaking up free enterprise, the two parties are seemingly in lock step in their mission to destroy the free market. The big exception is foreign policy where President Van Horn has led the U.S. in a bold new direction and the neoconservative movement has been marginalized to the Democratic minority and a handful of fringe Republicans like Senator Elizabeth Hunt (R-AL) who continues to wants to rage [expletive deleted] any country that looks at us wrong. With one year of the 119th Session of Congress in the books, here’s your Freedom Index for 2025. Happy New Year! The Good Leading the pack is Senator John Burton of Ohio and Senator Nate Calloway of Nebraska. These two bucked the far left lurch of the Republican Party after President Allred’s death to stick to one time conservative principles of free trade and restoring the private healthcare market. Senator Calloway is more traditionally conservative, but did some outstanding speeches at CATO of all places, defending free trade and entitlement reform. ‘[T]rade, like liberty, is a cornerstone of our republic,’ says Calloway. Burton put words into action, however, introducing actual legislation to restore free trade and save Medicare from its imminent demise. While imperfect, the bold initiatives gave these two the highest scores from a Republican or Democratic member of the U.S. Senate in the two year history of the Freedom Index. Burton gets a B- and Calloway gets a D, so do not rest on your laurels and get too confident just yet. Rounding out the top 3 is Democrat Ross McCallen of Arizona: A self-described ‘moderate’ Democrat, McCallen was not afraid to honor Arizona’s maverick tradition and still support civil liberties while some of his colleagues do not. The Bad On the bottom end of the spectrum is Democratic Senators Avraham and Baudelaire of Massachusetts, hindered mainly by a vestigial hawkish foreign policy and an extremely far left voting history, respectively. Foreign policy, immigration, and Medicare expansion kept Senator Sizemore of PA down into 2025. Republican Senator Albion of Ohio is forever dead to us after dumping billions of tax dollars into Lake Erie and while our old friend, Commie Kahiona, has lost her ever loving mind, veering so far extreme right on foreign policy into Senator Hunt (R-AL) level I-want-to-rage-[expletive deleted]-istan. For America’s sake, we hope all the neocons go on a one-way hunting trip with Dick Cheney. Neoconservatism is dead, it just took 17 years to count the buckshot. Meanwhile, Senator Minority Leader Rafael Coleman (D-CO) saw the most improvement between sessions due to his leadership on marijuana legalization and not having his name on every horrible piece of legislation again this session (that honor goes to the President). The Ugly One time leaders like Senator Earl Duplantis (R-LA), Levi Keonig (R-FL), and President Van Horn (R-KY) dropped significantly for championing and ushering through the People’s First Agenda and their ridiculous obsession with fish. One time VLFI leader Koenig plummeted the most between sessions for his wholesale allegiance to the People’s First Agenda and flip flop on minimum wage. We now live in a world where Bernie Bros are Republicans, neocons are Democrats, and we are neither at war with Eastasia nor Eurasia. President Van Horn’s triumphant policy of non-aggression kept him alive but just under the median this time due to the twin demons of his economic populism and Executive Order spree. His ranking also may be muted by not participating in our questionnaire. What, like the White House has been busy, or something? Methodology On the subject of questionnaires, we updated our methodology this time to give a chance for Senators to at least allege their positions to us, in confidence, to help flesh out a clearer picture on important issues that the Senate has yet to take action on. *cough, cough* #Legalize4/20 2026??? *cough* 53.57% responded to our questionnaire and everyone who did saw a statistically significant improvement in their scores of +13 points on average, even when they are wrong. While we appreciate the sometimes hilarious qualitative responses, this is a quantitative rubric and in most cases, it only ended up reducing respondents' scores. Keep the hate mail coming though: We will publish a greatest hits one day. If anyone did not get a chance to complete the questionnaire this time, we are continuing to accept them on a rolling basis. The mean overall was a 34.32%, which is an F-, but the mean from survey respondents was 47.09%; still an F- but a high F-. Observations Without giving any names, there are some interesting observations from aggregate survey responses. First and foremost, 76.67% of respondents support marijuana legalization, even more than the 70% of Americans broadly in a 2023 PEW poll. Someone call Coleman: Its 4/20 some year? 80% said they do not oppose the right to bear arms (is that triple negative?) and 53.33% agree that the U.S. intervenes too much in other countries. To demonstrate the accuracy of this poll, (or how much Congress is a bunch of liars,) we asked if optimal wages are best determined by the market. 100% of the 50% who said they support free market wages voted to double the minimum wage last year. A clearer sign than ever that our public education system is failing us. Future of the Vox Libertatis Freedom Index Going forward, we will continue to update the Freedom Index each year, and send out new questionnaires but the outstanding previous questionnaires will also still be accepted indefinitely. We will do ad hoc Freedom Indices for important high profile races as in 2024 and are experimenting with adding a multidimensional model which will provide breakdown where a person stands on foreign policy, economic, and individual liberty. For example, President Van Horn scores very high on foreign policy but lower on economic liberty so his Index is really more of an odd L shape that the average does not fully highlight. We will continue to do our best to keep you informed and urge our elected leaders to always: #ChooseFreedom @TexAgRepublican@Elizabeth Hunt R-AL@Kandler@Albion@Brushbeck@Avner@Sovereign@Alaskansockeyepuffs@camilodeso@DMH@Jack -
Istanbul Accords: Fragile Peace or a Gamble with Ukraine's Future? By Jared Kane, International Correspondent for Capitol Compass For several years of war and after untold devastation ravaged the country, the Ukraine-Russia Treaty dubbed the Istanbul Accords, has emerged as one of the most consequential moments of the decade. It is a promise of peace and stability. But it is built upon a bedrock of the same devastation that took hold of Ukraine when the war started in 2022. This treaty has been framed as a path to stability. Still, it has sparked intense debate across the globe, raising questions about its long-term implications for Ukraine's sovereignty. It's also a test of the resilience of democratic principles in the face of authoritarian aggression. The crux of the accords is the status of the Crimea Peninsula. This region, occupied by Russia in 2014 despite heavy international opposition, is heavy with symbolism for both nations. The agreement asserts Ukraine's formal sovereignty over the peninsula while granting Russia administrative control for the next two decades. This lease will cost Moscow $1 billion annually and a share of the revenue generated from the region's development. Oversight of this portion of the agreement will fall to an independent commission comprised of representatives from the OSCE, Turkey, China, and India. Supporters of the agreement view this compromise as a pragmatic resolution to an entrenched stalemate. At the same time, critics argue that it risks legitimizing territorial conquests and sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing Russia to retain any semblance of control, even temporarily, raises uncomfortable questions about the price of aggression and fragility of international norms. The accords also address the status of contested regions of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. It grants them autonomy within Ukraine's borders. This concession on Ukraine's part acknowledges the realities of a divided population, particularly in areas with a significant Russian-speaking population. One could argue that proponents believe this measure could ease tensions and foster peaceful coexistence in the regions. At the same time, skeptics may fear it entrenches divisions and emboldens separatist movements. The most critical part of the agreement, especially in the eyes of Western powers, is Ukraine's neutrality pledge. This pledge is a sharp departure from its previous aspirations to join NATO. In exchange, Ukraine has been given security guarantees from major powers, including the United States, China, India, and Turkey. The White House argued, through an interview with the White House Press Secretary Ammon Rasmussen, that this was a "course correction from the last administration" and that it was necessary. To ensure peace, a demilitarized zone monitored by peacekeepers from Austria, China, Singapore, and Indonesia aims to provide stability and prevent renewed hostilities. While this is an attempt at fostering a lasting peace, the challenges of maintaining security in such a volatile environment remain daunting. The final part of the treaty is economic reconstruction; under the Istanbul Accords, Turkey and India will lead efforts to rebuild Ukraine's shattered infrastructure. Russia has also pledged financial support, though one could be concerned about the integrity and effectiveness of these commitments. For many Ukrainians, the prospect of rebuilding offers a glimmer of hope, tempered by concerns that inefficiency or corruption could ultimately undermine recovery efforts. This agreement underscores a shift in global power dynamics for the United States. With China and India playing such prominent roles in brokering the peace, America's position as the guarantor of democracy and democratic values faces significant challenges. Domestically, reactions have been mixed. The White House is proud to say that President Van Horn successfully brought the President of Russia and Ukraine to the table, saying, "This was a truly groundbreaking achievement and one that will promote peace in Eastern Europe and around the globe." Skeptics, on the other hand, like Chair of the Senate Progressive Caucus Osiris Storm, claim that the President "left Ukraine cornered into a bad deal." European powers like Germany, France, and the UK are all cautiously optimistic about the Istanbul Accords and the future of peace. While Poland, Estonia, Canada, and other Eastern European NATO countries are privately lived, believing the treaty to be a direct betrayal of the Ukrainian people. Still, despite all of this, many observers, myself included, remain uneasy. The Istanbul Accords reflect a series of painful compromises that, while understandably necessary to end the war, could further erode the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin international law. Allowing an aggressor, like Russia, to maintain control over seized land, even under stringent conditions like those imposed in the accords, risks emboldening future acts of aggression. Ultimately, history will decide whether the Istanbul Accords represent an authentic and genuine step towards lasting peace or a strategic gamble that encourages those willing to rewrite borders through force and intimidation. For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. The nation's extraordinary resilience to the Russian onslaught has carried it through the darkest days of the war. Its future now hinges not only on its own determination but also on the international community's resolve to uphold the accords and hold Russia accountable. The world watches and holds its breath as one question remains unanswered: Can this fragile peace withstand its underlying contradictions, or will it be remembered as a missed opportunity by the West to defend freedom and democratic values with unwavering conviction? Full text of the Istanbul Accords can be found here: -
2026 Midterm Preparations See Record Investments by Both Parties October 2025 – Washington, D.C. As the 2026 midterms loom, both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) are executing unprecedented election readiness strategies, pouring massive resources into key battleground states. This cycle marks the largest coordinated investment since the high-stakes 2024 elections, with new RNC Chairman, Senator Tom Worthham of South Carolina, leading a broad-front strategy to rival the Democratic machine spearheaded by DNC Chairwoman Charlotte O’Hare. Historic Levels of Investment The combined resources poured into state-level campaigns reflect the parties’ understanding of the high stakes of the 2026 midterms. With control of Congress, state legislatures, and governorships on the line, both parties have tailored their strategies to focus on critical regions. The DNC’s investments span a mix of traditionally blue strongholds and swing states, with particular emphasis on expanding influence in Kansas, California, Michigan, and New Mexico. Meanwhile, the RNC is focused on reclaiming ground in Nevada, Georgia, and New Jersey while consolidating its base in Alaska, Florida, and Ohio. The following table shows the current funding advantage by state, based on relative investments: State Advantage Party Leading Alaska +1 DNC Arizona +3 GOP California +4 DNC Colorado +1 DNC Florida +1 GOP Georgia +3 GOP Iowa +3 GOP Kansas +9 DNC Maine +7 DNC Michigan +2 DNC Montana +3 GOP Nebraska +2 GOP New Hampshire +1 DNC New Jersey +2 GOP New Mexico +2 GOP New York +1 DNC Nevada +5 GOP North Carolina +1 GOP Ohio +2 GOP Pennsylvania +4 GOP South Carolina +6 DNC Texas +6 DNC Virginia +1 DNC Wisconsin +4 DNC DNC Strategy: Building on Momentum Chairwoman O’Hare has continued to emphasize deep, localized investments, with Kansas emerging as a surprising focal point. The DNC’s effort in the state have given the Kansas Democratic Party a massive 4 to 1 monetary advantage there reflects a broader strategy of flipping traditionally Republican states by activating progressive voter blocs and targeting moderate voters. “We’ve learned that when we engage voters early and with clear, impactful policies, we can expand our map,” O’Hare said during a recent interview. Massive funding has also been directed to New Mexico, California, and Michigan—states the Democrats hope to solidify as bastions of support amid growing Republican efforts. RNC Strategy: Broad-Front Counterattack RNC Chairman Worthham’s approach marks a shift from the Freedom Caucus-driven focus of prior years to a broader, more distributed strategy. States like Alaska and Nevada have seen significant resources as the GOP attempts to catch up or outpace Democratic investments and shore up vulnerable areas. In New Jersey and New Mexico, Republicans have made substantial investments to capitalize on recent electoral gains, including the gubernatorial win in New Jersey and competitive federal races in New Mexico. “We are competing everywhere, and we are competing to win,” Worthham stated at an RNC rally. “This is about bringing conservative values to every corner of America, no matter how blue or red.” Key Battlegrounds Several states are emerging as pivotal battlegrounds where the funding races have created closely contested environments: Alaska - Democrats and Republicans have matched each other almost dollar for dollar in the state, and with the Governor's race wide open, it's expected these levels of investments may continue. Georgia - Flipping Georgia at the state level has been a running dream of the Democrats for years. They possess both US Senate seats. The GOP knows this calculus as well as the Dems do and have ensured they are better funded, so far, for whomever ultimately challenges Ossof or has to defend the legacy of Brian Kemp. Michigan - Both the Democrats and the GOP have begun funneling cash into this key mid western state. While it has a Democratic lean, the Republicans are capable of punching through, if they can get a fundraising advantage, something the Dems currently hold. This comes during a vulnerable year with Governor Whitmer stepping down and it being unknown who will succeed her. New Jersey - New Jersey has turned into the frontlines of the battle between the RNC and the DNC and made it a true battleground state. with the investments seemingly not slowing down. New Hampshire - Republican Kelly Ayotte is in a tough re-election bid and her control of the New Hampshire legislature is up in the area, especially with recent Democratic investments in the state. New Mexico - The Republicans have tossed a significant investment campaign, hoping to capitalize on the retiring Democratic Governor and the defending US Senator in the state. The Republican lead will need to be fought into to relieve pressure on Democrats in the state. North Carolina - Recent Freedom Caucus victories in the state, combined with a superior GOP investment campaign is giving the advantage to the Republicans, but the Democrats are matching them as best we can. Republicans to be wary of repeating the campaign in Virginia, in this increasingly moderate and battleground state. Virginia - Democrats learned the gaming winning formula in Virginia in the past Gubernational race, and Republicans will have taken notes as they have begun investing heavily in Virginia. States of Concern for Either Side Kansas - The Democrats have a vastly larger warchest in Kansas, and whomever they use to succeed the outgoing Democratic Governor will be well funded to keep the Governor's Mansion in what is otherwise a solid ruby red state. Maine - The Democrats are honing in on outgoing Senator Hunt's seat, and the massive disparity between the Democrats and Republicans need to be given them pause, which may end up losing one of their seats in the Senate. Nevada - Democrats need to start rallying funds into the state, or else Governor Lombardo may keep the reins of power in Carson City and take control of the legislature to give the GOP a lock on this still extremely competitive state. Pennsylvania - Governor Josh Shapiro is already dealing with a GOP legislature and without investments into his organzation the GOP may be able to flip the Governor's Mansion and give them real momentum going into 2028. South Carolina - In one of the more shocking developments the Democrats have poured unanswered investments in South Carolina. While the Governor's race, or even the Senator Graham's re-election bids are not likely to flip, this could cause issues with the Congressional delegation, or cause some upsets in the state legislature, with the Democrats wanting to shift the momentum and put the entire east coast of southern states into play. Texas - No one doubts Governor Abbot or Senator Butcher's ability to hold their states, but Texas has been incredibly becoming more and more purple, and victory is no long as assured in Texas as it is in say Oklahoma. The Republicans have begun putting investments into the Lone Star State, but do not want to be outspent by the Democrats again. Wisconsin - The Republicans have otherwise ignored Wisconsin up to this point, and the Wisconsin Democratic Party knows how to capitalize on Republican weakness or lethargy. If they want a chance to taking back power from Governor Evers, or keeping their control of the legislature, they will need to push hard in the funding category. Criticism and Intrigue Both parties are facing criticism over the scale of their spending specifically on Election Readiness. While preparing elections is critical, critics note there has been less focus on state issue advocacy then there could be otherwise or candidate recruitment. One Democratic operative in Kansas put it bluntly "Having all this cash is great, not having a candidate to spend it on means it's not doing us any good". Still others have note the narrow focus on Election Readiness has allowed factions to sneak up the middle and take control of Party levers without opposition. While the DNC and RNC may not care as much directly on which faction is dominant in which state, the congressional delegations are concerned as are operatives on the ground when their bosses in the Governor's Mansions, don't align with a newly powerful faction at the state level, like the case of Gianforte in Montana, a strong Freedom Caucus man, now dealing with an resurgent Mainstreet state party. Meanwhile, observers are watching closely to see whether the RNC’s broad-front strategy can rival the DNC’s historically effective targeted investments. As 2026 approaches, the unprecedented resources being funneled into election readiness underscore the growing stakes of every election cycle. With America’s political landscape as polarized as ever, both parties are gearing up for a high-stakes fight for control of the nation’s future.
-
-
Upcoming Events
-
Recent Achievements
-
Recommended Posts