Midnight Serenade

The Triumph of Non-Aggression By Rondal Goldfarb The non-aggression principle (NAP) is a philosophy that asserts individuals and nations should refrain from initiating force or coercion against others, respecting sovereignty and personal freedom. In international affairs, the NAP advocates for a foreign policy centered on non-interventionism, peaceful coexistence, and voluntary cooperation. This principle discourages preemptive wars, regime-change interventions, and economic sanctions that harm innocent civilians, focusing instead on diplomacy, free trade, and cultural exchange to resolve disputes. The non-aggression principle (NAP), rooted in the idea that individuals and nations should refrain from initiating force against others, offers a powerful framework for ethical and pragmatic foreign policy. At its core, the NAP prioritizes sovereignty, mutual respect, and peaceful cooperation—values often overshadowed by power struggles in international relations. By adhering to the NAP, nations can build trust, reduce global conflict, and foster mutually beneficial relationships without compromising their security or values. While the bloodthirsty neocons in Congress would prefer a state of perpetual war to impose American imperialism around the world and enrich their donors off the blood of dead American soldiers and countless civilians, adhering to the NAP instead could lead to a dramatic reduction in conflicts. And we are already seeing this bear fruit around the world. Military interventions, even those with noble intentions, often escalate violence, destabilize regions, and result in unforeseen consequences. By resisting the urge to engage in preemptive or coercive actions, nations can focus on diplomatic solutions and economic partnerships that foster long-term stability and prosperity. 1. Hong Kong When President Xi was assassinated and Han ascended to power, many in Washington were quick to prepare for the worst and punish Han for the sins of his predecessors. They took swift action to introduce bills to deliberately provoke and antagonize conflict with the United States’ largest geopolitical competitor, including approving billions of dollars in aid to confront the new regime in Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific. To be fair, Han did follow Xi’s orders to lead the oppressive crackdown of the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests. Nevertheless, the new regime under Han’s leadership has been more aligned with reformist factions and far more receptive to pragmatic progress in approaching both internal disputes and international affairs. When a new round of Pro-Democracy protests arose in Hong Kong earlier this year, instead of initiating a crack down, Premier Li and Foreign Minister Wang engaged in dialogue with the protestors and came to an historic agreement with Beijing agreeing to inclusive District Council elections and increased media freedoms in exchange for recognition of the National Security Law. The Shanghai Clique and reformists in leadership are demonstrating that they are not the oppressive hardliners of the past and they have been proactively engaged on the world stage. Prior to being elected President, then Senator Van Horn wisely articulated that war with China would be catastrophic, but he could further seize the opportunity of ascending reformist Chinese leaders to make serious progress in resolving economic trade disputes. As Senator Calloway (R-NE) noted recently to CATO, ‘tariffs and trade barriers often impoverish nations.’ Economic cooperation and trade are the most effective way to foster continued progress towards democracy and civil liberty. The non-aggression principle also aligns with the principles of self-determination and respect for sovereignty, which are foundational to international law. By refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, countries adhering to the NAP can build trust and credibility on the global stage. This approach not only prevents unnecessary conflicts but also allows nations to redirect resources from warfare to domestic priorities, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. America First, if you will. 2. Venezuela When Eduardo González was rightfully elected the new President of Venezuela, outgoing dictator Nicolás Maduro did what dictators do, refusing to accept election results and calling up their henchmen to fight to overturn elections and keep them in power. When Russia and Cuba intervened on behalf of Maduro, the election turmoil descended into Civil War and some in the Administration and Congress in the U.S. sought to do the same, citing the Monroe doctrine and securing the safe removal of American citizens in the country as justification for military intervention into Venezuela’s internal struggle for democracy. Fast forward to today, President Allred secured the safe evacuation of American citizens, and the Van Horn administration brought a peaceful end to the civil war, without the need for military intervention or war. We would argue that Maduro had already lost the war after González supporters liberated the Palace and Maduro fled the country, but some Maduro loyalists continued to fight on regardless. Nevertheless, Maduro officially conceded the election, and the Venezuelan people are finally freed from the shackles of socialist tyranny. A fitting resolution that we should all celebrate. That said, the Van Horn administration could also take this opportunity to renew trade with the new Venezuela, reducing Americans’ energy costs and strengthening the burgeoning democratic and free market reforms under President González. 3. Ukraine After appropriating $174.2 billion to Ukraine through five supplemental acts from 2022 through 2024, the war with Russia remained at a standstill with over 1 million dead. As usual, Congress determined that the only solution was to throw even more money at the problem, however, cooler heads prevailed and the Van Horn Administration sought a different course of action aligned with the NAP: Stop sinking billions of American taxpayer dollars into perpetuating a regional conflict overseas. Despite the vast majority of Washington pushing ahead with another $95 billion supplemental bill last year including $60 billion for Ukraine and deriding opponents like now President Kyle Van Horn for being agents of the Kremlin and abandoning American allies and the very idea of democracy in Eastern Europe, Van Horn once again brought peace to a war torn region without bring the nation to war. It would be fair to criticize the state of our own Democratic institutions given the 2024 election cycle and the pardoning of insurrectionists, but not on the Russia-Ukraine front. The Treaty of Ankara (not Istanbul) preserves the sovereignty of Crimea and the autonomous regions and the people within without the need for U.S. troops or permanent babysitting duties. It lifts sanctions and provides support for restoration without spending any more American tax dollars. While we think it reasonable to have not intervened in any way shape or form, Putin is a threat to all that we hold dear, and the American-negotiated peace is as just a peace as could be justified (say that ten times fast.) Still, critics of the NAP often argue that it could lead to passivity in the face of aggression or threats. However, the principle does not preclude defensive action. It simply emphasizes that force should only be used as a last resort and in response to clear acts of aggression. And in each of the cases above, no aggression was directed towards the United States or American’s safety, rendering a military response to these conflicts as overreactionary, unnecessary, and dangerous. The restraint demonstrated by the Van Horn Administration can prevent unnecessary wars while maintaining a nation's ability to protect itself and its allies. In an era where global conflicts are increasingly complex and interconnected, the non-aggression principle offers a morally consistent and strategically sound path forward. By championing peace and respecting the autonomy of others, nations can lead by example and cultivate a more stable, cooperative world order. #ChooseFreedom @TexAgRepublican@Albion

Progressive Caucus Seizes Control of New Jersey Democratic Party Amid Post-Election Shake-Up April 2026 – Trenton, NJ In a dramatic shift within the Democratic Party, the Progressive Caucus has taken control of the New Jersey State Democratic Party, ousting the New Democrat faction that had long been a dominant force. The change comes after months of grassroots organizing and amid lingering fallout from the party’s defeat in the 2025 gubernatorial race, where Senate Majority Leader Teresa Ruiz, a prominent Progressive, lost to Republican moderate Jack Ciattarelli. Grassroots Movement Pushes for Change The Progressive Caucus’ rise was fueled by frustration over Ruiz’s narrow defeat, which many Progressives attributed to a lack of full party support and a failure to energize the Democratic base. Grassroots organizers rallied around a platform of economic and social justice issues, calling for a more assertive approach to advancing Progressive policies. “This is about ensuring that the Democratic Party stands firmly for the values of working families and marginalized communities,” said newly elected State Party Chair Darlene Vega, a Progressive activist from Newark. “We’ve seen what happens when we compromise too much—Republicans win. That’s not going to happen again.” The Progressive Caucus’ platform centers on bold policy initiatives, including climate action, healthcare expansion, and workers’ rights, which they believe will reinvigorate Democratic turnout in future elections. The Aftermath of Ruiz’s Loss Teresa Ruiz’s defeat to Jack Ciattarelli marked a turning point for the party. Despite her high-profile role as Senate Majority Leader and a strong Progressive platform, Ruiz struggled to appeal to moderates and independents in the general election. Ciattarelli, a seasoned Republican moderate, capitalized on economic concerns and frustrations with Democratic leadership, securing significant support from suburban and independent voters. Critics within the party argue that Ruiz’s loss highlights the risks of running candidates perceived as too far left in a state with a diverse electorate. “The lesson from 2025 should have been clear: we need to appeal to the middle,” said former State Party Chair Anthony Gallo, a New Democrat. “Instead, the Progressives are doubling down on a strategy that alienates moderates and independents.” Policy Wins Bolster Progressive Momentum Despite the gubernatorial setback, the Progressive Caucus achieved significant legislative victories that galvanized their supporters. Most notably, they spearheaded the passage of an anti-mandatory E-Verify bill modeled after California’s AB-1288, directly challenging President Van Horn’s Executive Order 14. “This was a clear win for workers’ rights and a rejection of federal overreach,” said Assemblywoman Priya Kapoor, a Progressive lawmaker who championed the bill. “We’re showing that New Jersey can lead the way on protecting immigrant communities and standing up to draconian policies.” The legislation passed easily in the Democratic-controlled legislature and was signed into law by outgoing Governor Phil Murphy, himself a New Democrat, in one of his final acts in office. Concerns Among Moderates While the Progressives celebrate their ascendance, moderates within the party are voicing concerns about the direction of the New Jersey Democratic Party. “Losing independents and moderates to the Republicans cost us the governor’s mansion, and we’re at risk of making the same mistake again,” said State Senator Carla Romano, a prominent New Democrat. “The Progressives have the energy, but we can’t win statewide if we alienate the center.” Romano and others worry that the Progressives’ aggressive platform could backfire in competitive districts, particularly in suburban areas that have historically leaned Democratic but are increasingly up for grabs. Looking Ahead to 2026 The shift in leadership sets the stage for a pivotal 2026 midterm election. With Ciattarelli in the governor’s office and the GOP energized by their 2025 win, the stakes are high for the Democratic Party to rebuild its coalition and reclaim lost ground. Progressive leaders remain confident that their vision will resonate with voters, pointing to growing support among younger and more diverse demographics. “We’re building a movement, not just a campaign,” Vega said. “The people of New Jersey are ready for real change, and we’re going to deliver.” As the party braces for the challenges ahead, New Jersey becomes a key battleground in the broader ideological struggle within the Democratic Party, with implications that could ripple far beyond the state’s borders.

Freedom Caucus Seizes Control of North Carolina GOP in Major Power Shift Q1, 2026– Raleigh, NC In a significant development for the Republican Party in North Carolina, the Freedom Caucus faction has taken control of the state GOP from the Republican Study Committee (RSC). The victory is the culmination of a sustained grassroots campaign and comes on the heels of the controversial Parental Bill of Rights, which sparked statewide debate but was ultimately vetoed by Democratic Governor Josh Stein. Grassroots Momentum Drives Change The Freedom Caucus leveraged a well-organized grassroots movement to gain influence within the state party. Activists and local leaders aligned with the faction capitalized on frustrations among the party's base, particularly over perceived inaction on conservative priorities such as parental rights, education reform, and cultural issues. “We’ve brought the voices of North Carolina’s families to the forefront of our party,” said newly elected North Carolina GOP Chair Amber Frazier, a staunch Freedom Caucus supporter. “The Freedom Caucus is about delivering on the promises Republicans make to voters, not just talking about them.” Frazier and her allies emphasized that the takeover reflects a growing demand for a more aggressive approach to governance, with a focus on amplifying grassroots concerns. The Role of the Parental Bill of Rights The Freedom Caucus gained significant momentum following the introduction of the Parental Bill of Rights in 2025. The proposed legislation, which sought to restrict classroom discussions of gender and sexual orientation, ban critical race theory in schools, and increase parental access to academic materials, ignited widespread support among conservative activists. Although the bill passed the Republican-controlled legislature, Governor Josh Stein vetoed it, citing concerns over its potential to harm students and educators. The veto sparked outrage among Freedom Caucus supporters and further galvanized their efforts to oust the RSC’s leadership. “The veto of the Parental Bill of Rights was the breaking point,” said Freedom Caucus member and state legislator Mark Whitley, who introduced the bill. “It showed that our party needed stronger, more unified leadership to push back against liberal overreach.” RSC Leaders Struggle to Hold Ground The Republican Study Committee faction, which had long dominated the North Carolina GOP, struggled to counter the Freedom Caucus’ insurgency. Known for its more measured, policy-focused approach, the RSC faced criticism from within the party for being too cautious in its opposition to Democratic policies and for failing to deliver on key conservative priorities. Outgoing state party chair Margaret Lanning acknowledged the challenges, saying, “While we’ve worked hard to build a strong and inclusive party, it’s clear that the base is demanding a different approach.” Implications for 2026 and Beyond The Freedom Caucus’ rise comes as North Carolina gears up for high-stakes elections in 2026. Senator Marjorie Ashcroaft, who also served as the Freedom Caucus Chair in Washington, is up for re-election and several competitive congressional seats are expected to test the new direction of the state GOP. Political analysts note that the Freedom Caucus’ takeover could energize the party’s base but may also risk alienating moderate Republicans and independent voters in a state that has become increasingly competitive in recent years. “North Carolina is a microcosm of the larger battle within the GOP,” said Dr. Julianne McCormack, a political science professor at Duke University. “The Freedom Caucus’ success here shows the potency of their grassroots strategy, but it also raises questions about how the party will appeal to a broader electorate in a purple state.” A Warning Shot for the RSC Nationwide? The North Carolina development is being closely watched by Republicans across the country, as it represents another loss of influence for the RSC to the Freedom Caucus. The outcome could embolden Freedom Caucus-aligned activists in other states to launch similar campaigns. For now, the Freedom Caucus has solidified its grip on the North Carolina GOP, setting the stage for a pivotal election season that will test the faction’s ability to turn grassroots enthusiasm into electoral success.