Olivia
Online
Ron Bartels
@RonBartels7
Non-partisan political strategist rooted in biblical values, with legal and human relations expertise ~ advocating just, constitutional solutions for all.
Heber Springs, Arkansas
Joined January 2022
325 Following
831 Followers
1.7K Posts
Pinned Tweet
Image by @grok
Zero
On a scale of 1-10 with ten being the highest level what is your interest in Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding?
The last thing we need is more of you, so that is great news! As a reward, I'll send you a dozen Krispy Kream Donuts.
God is good.
@RealJamesWoods The last thing we need is more of you, so that is great news! As a reward, I'll send you a dozen Krispy Kream Donuts.
He was not engaged in a protest; he was participating in a riot. The distinction is important both legally and constitutionally.
Peaceful protest is protected by the First Amendment and includes the lawful expression of opinions, grievances, and political views. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that freedom of speech and assembly do not extend to violence, destruction of property, or conduct that threatens public safety. See Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965).
A riot, by contrast, involves acts of violence, threats of violence, or conduct that obstructs, injures, intimidates, or endangers other persons or property. Federal law defines a riot as a public disturbance involving acts of violence by one or more persons that create a clear and present danger of, or result in, damage or injury to persons or property. See 18 U.S.C. § 2102(a).
If an individual is injured while resisting a lawful order issued by law enforcement acting within its statutory authority, the fact of injury alone does not transform lawful enforcement into misconduct. Courts generally evaluate whether the officer's order was lawful and whether the force used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
In short, protesting is the protected expression of an opinion. Rioting is conduct that involves violence, threats, or unlawful interference with the rights and safety of others. The First Amendment protects peaceful assembly; it does not protect riots.
Was ICE justified in what they did to this leftist protester who was throwing stuff at them ??
A. YES
B. NO
He was not engaged in a protest; he was participating in a riot. The distinction is important both legally and constitutionally.
Peaceful protest is protected by the First Amendment and includes the lawful expression of opinions, grievances, and political views. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that freedom of speech and assembly do not extend to violence, destruction of property, or conduct that threatens public safety. See Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965).
A riot, by contrast, involves acts of violence, threats of violence, or conduct that obstructs, injures, intimidates, or endangers other persons or property. Federal law defines a riot as a public disturbance involving acts of violence by one or more persons that create a clear and present danger of, or result in, damage or injury to persons or property. See 18 U.S.C. § 2102(a).
If an individual is injured while resisting a lawful order issued by law enforcement acting within its statutory authority, the fact of injury alone does not transform lawful enforcement into misconduct. Courts generally evaluate whether the officer's order was lawful and whether the force used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
In short, protesting is the protected expression of an opinion. Rioting is conduct that involves violence, threats, or unlawful interference with the rights and safety of others. The First Amendment protects peaceful assembly; it does not protect riots.
@SarahWorkx Where do I sign up? I experienced my work vehicle being stolen there while I was working to help a corporate client. I'm never going back no matter how much they pay me.
Whether Nancy Pelosi should have faced criminal prosecution is a matter of legal evidence, due process, and the judgment of the courts. Many critics argue that powerful political figures often appear to receive different treatment than ordinary citizens, raising concerns about equal justice under the law. Scripture itself warns against partiality in judgment: "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment... but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15, KJV). Likewise, Proverbs 24:23 states, "It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment."
For those who believe that earthly justice has failed, the Bible teaches that no person ultimately escapes accountability before God. However, Christian doctrine distinguishes between the Judgment Seat of Christ (for believers) and the Great White Throne Judgment described in Revelation 20:11-15. According to this passage, the Great White Throne Judgment is the final judgment of the unsaved dead, where every person is judged according to their works before God.
The New Testament consistently teaches that religious rituals, financial offerings, or human institutions cannot remove guilt before God. Salvation and forgiveness come through genuine faith and repentance. As Peter declared, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19, KJV). Likewise, 1 John 1:9 teaches, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Historically, the sale of indulgences became a major controversy during the Protestant Reformation because many reformers argued that they created the false impression that forgiveness could be purchased. Martin Luther's objections in 1517 centered on the biblical teaching that repentance and God's grace—not financial transactions—are the basis of forgiveness.
Therefore, from a biblical perspective, if earthly courts fail to administer justice, ultimate justice remains in God's hands. Scripture teaches that every person, regardless of wealth, status, or political influence, will ultimately answer to God, "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10), and God "is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34).
Should Nancy Pelosi face charges over her role surrounding January 6?
A. Yes 🇺🇸
B. No 🤔
Whether Nancy Pelosi should have faced criminal prosecution is a matter of legal evidence, due process, and the judgment of the courts. Many critics argue that powerful political figures often appear to receive different treatment than ordinary citizens, raising concerns about equal justice under the law. Scripture itself warns against partiality in judgment: "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment... but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15, KJV). Likewise, Proverbs 24:23 states, "It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment."
For those who believe that earthly justice has failed, the Bible teaches that no person ultimately escapes accountability before God. However, Christian doctrine distinguishes between the Judgment Seat of Christ (for believers) and the Great White Throne Judgment described in Revelation 20:11-15. According to this passage, the Great White Throne Judgment is the final judgment of the unsaved dead, where every person is judged according to their works before God.
The New Testament consistently teaches that religious rituals, financial offerings, or human institutions cannot remove guilt before God. Salvation and forgiveness come through genuine faith and repentance. As Peter declared, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19, KJV). Likewise, 1 John 1:9 teaches, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Historically, the sale of indulgences became a major controversy during the Protestant Reformation because many reformers argued that they created the false impression that forgiveness could be purchased. Martin Luther's objections in 1517 centered on the biblical teaching that repentance and God's grace—not financial transactions—are the basis of forgiveness.
Therefore, from a biblical perspective, if earthly courts fail to administer justice, ultimate justice remains in God's hands. Scripture teaches that every person, regardless of wealth, status, or political influence, will ultimately answer to God, "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10), and God "is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34).
Whether Nancy Pelosi should have faced criminal prosecution is a matter of legal evidence, due process, and the judgment of the courts. Many critics argue that powerful political figures often appear to receive different treatment than ordinary citizens, raising concerns about equal justice under the law. Scripture itself warns against partiality in judgment: "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment... but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15, KJV). Likewise, Proverbs 24:23 states, "It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment."
For those who believe that earthly justice has failed, the Bible teaches that no person ultimately escapes accountability before God. However, Christian doctrine distinguishes between the Judgment Seat of Christ (for believers) and the Great White Throne Judgment described in Revelation 20:11-15. According to this passage, the Great White Throne Judgment is the final judgment of the unsaved dead, where every person is judged according to their works before God.
The New Testament consistently teaches that religious rituals, financial offerings, or human institutions cannot remove guilt before God. Salvation and forgiveness come through genuine faith and repentance. As Peter declared, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19, KJV). Likewise, 1 John 1:9 teaches, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Historically, the sale of indulgences became a major controversy during the Protestant Reformation because many reformers argued that they created the false impression that forgiveness could be purchased. Martin Luther's objections in 1517 centered on the biblical teaching that repentance and God's grace—not financial transactions—are the basis of forgiveness.
Therefore, from a biblical perspective, if earthly courts fail to administer justice, ultimate justice remains in God's hands. Scripture teaches that every person, regardless of wealth, status, or political influence, will ultimately answer to God, "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10), and God "is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34).
Of course, in a runoff in November. Why, because when an incumbent falls below 40% in a primary they almost always lose in a runoff.
YES! Los Angeles is ready for change!
@ProudElephant Of course, in a runoff in November. Why, because when an incumbent falls below 40% in a primary they almost always lose in a runoff.
What Is Conservatarianism?
A Constitutional Conservative and Libertarian Framework
Why limiting power, protecting liberty, and restoring self-government still matter
Author: Ronomundo
Abstract: Conservatarianism argues that liberty lasts only when power is restrained. It brings constitutional conservatism and libertarian principles together around a single claim: free people remain free only when government is limited, law is applied equally, markets remain open, communities remain strong, and citizens stay engaged in self-government.
American politics often speaks as if constitutional conservatism and libertarianism must eventually part ways. Conservatarianism starts with a different observation: both traditions are strongest when they recognize the same core threat—the concentration of power beyond effective constitutional and civic restraint.
If liberty is to endure, it cannot rest on slogans or outrage alone. It requires a constitutional order that divides authority, protects rights, and preserves the local institutions and civic habits through which free people learn to govern themselves.
This article argues that Conservatarianism offers a coherent framework for meeting that challenge by joining limited government, liberty under law, fiscal restraint, local self-government, and active citizen oversight into a single constitutional vision.
The principles that follow are not presented as disconnected preferences, but as parts of a single argument: that freedom is most secure when power is limited, law is predictable, responsibility is personal, and political authority remains answerable to the people.
The central claim of Conservatarianism is that liberty is most secure when government is constitutionally restrained, justice is applied equally, and citizens remain active participants in public life.
Accordingly, Conservatarianism is best understood not merely as an electoral preference or partisan label, but as a citizen-centered movement for restoring constitutional self-government through institutional reform, local engagement, and cultural renewal.
That concern also helps explain why George Mason, one of the leading Anti-Federalists, remains relevant to this argument. Mason warned that liberty could be endangered when representation becomes remote, rights are insufficiently secured, and national power grows detached from the daily lives of the people. Whatever one makes of every Anti-Federalist objection, his insistence on a declaration of rights and meaningful limits on centralized authority reinforces the Conservatarian conviction that constitutional liberty depends on both restrained power and vigilant citizens.
Core Principles of Conservatarianism
1. Constitutional Originalism
From this perspective, government possesses legitimate authority only by the consent of the governed, and it should exercise only those powers that have been constitutionally delegated to it.
• Strict adherence to constitutional limits.
• Enumerated powers doctrine.
• Separation of powers.
• Protection of the Bill of Rights.
• Opposition to government by executive decree.
As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
________________________________________
2. Individual National Liberty Alliance
Individuals are sovereign over their own lives so long as they do not violate the equal rights of others.
• Free speech.
• Free exercise of religion.
• Freedom of association.
• Due process.
• Property rights.
• Self-defense rights.
Government exists to secure preexisting rights, not to create them. This principle echoes the Declaration of Independence, which states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."
________________________________________
3. Fiscal Responsibility
In fiscal policy, this framework argues for simplicity, transparency, and tighter constitutional limits on federal intrusion into personal and economic life.
• Abolish federal income taxes.
• Eliminate payroll taxes.
• Eliminate IRS intrusion into personal finances.
• Replace income taxation with a national consumption tax.
• Tax spending rather than productivity.
Its basic view is: Tax what people take out of the economy, not what they contribute to it.
________________________________________
4. Local Self-Government
Power should rest as close to the people as possible.
• Local solutions before state solutions.
• State solutions before federal solutions.
• Citizen oversight of public officials.
• Decentralization of power.
This principle reflects the federalist view that public power should remain as close to the people as practicable and that undelegated powers are reserved to the states or to the people themselves.
As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."
________________________________________
5. Accountability Over Authority
No public official is above the law.
• Transparency.
• Open records.
• Public oversight.
• Ethical government.
• Personal responsibility for misconduct.
No badge, robe, title, or office should place any public official beyond the reach of justice, scrutiny, or lawful accountability.
________________________________________
6. Free Markets with Equal Rules
Government should set fair rules for commerce, enforce them evenly, and avoid directing the economy from the top down.
• Competition over cronyism.
• Oppose monopolistic favoritism.
• Equal application of laws.
• Support domestic production and entrepreneurship.
The objective is opportunity rather than privilege.
________________________________________
7. Strong Communities
Conservatarianism holds that liberty is sustained not only by legal protections, but also by the moral and civic habits cultivated through families, associations, congregations, and local institutions.
• Strong families.
• Voluntary associations.
• Churches.
• Civic organizations.
• Community service.
Many social problems are better addressed by families, churches, charities, and civic institutions than by distant bureaucracies.
________________________________________
8. Citizen Participation
Citizens should do more than vote every few years; they should remain actively involved in public life and the oversight of government.
That includes local committees, public-policy review, candidate scrutiny, and sustained participation between elections.
• County-level constituent committees.
• Citizen oversight.
• Public policy review.
• Candidate accountability.
• Continuous participation between elections.
The goal is to turn citizens from spectators into stakeholders. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, "A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government."
________________________________________
What Conservatarianism Opposes
• Centralized government power.
• Permanent political classes.
• Corporate welfare.
• Regulatory favoritism.
• Excessive taxation.
• Unelected bureaucratic rule.
• Government secrecy.
• Political tribalism.
• Dependency-based governance.
________________________________________
Frequently Asked Questions About Conservatarianism
What is Conservatarianism?
Conservatarianism is a political framework that combines constitutional conservatism and libertarian principles. It emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, local self-government, equal justice under law, and active citizen oversight.
How is Conservatarianism different from traditional conservatism and libertarianism?
It shares conservatism’s emphasis on constitutional order, accountability, and civil society, while also sharing libertarianism’s emphasis on personal freedom and limited state power. Its distinctive focus is to join both traditions in a citizen-led model of constitutional self-government.
What does Conservatarianism say about government power and taxes?
It holds that government should stay within constitutional limits, protect rights, enforce fair rules, and remain accountable to the people. In fiscal policy, it favors simpler, more transparent taxation and opposes unnecessary federal intrusion into private life.
Why does Conservatarianism emphasize local self-government and citizen participation?
It argues that liberty is strongest when public power stays close to the people and citizens remain involved between elections. Local oversight, civic participation, and decentralized decision-making are treated as essential safeguards against concentrated power.
Why This Argument Matters
In an era of administrative expansion, polarized partisanship, and declining public trust, the central political question is no longer whether power will be exercised, but whether it will remain constitutionally bounded and publicly accountable.
Conservatarianism answers that question by insisting that liberty survives only where authority is divided, citizens are vigilant, and institutions remain close enough to the people to be corrected by them.
For Americans who love their country, revere the Constitution, and yet have grown weary of partisan politics, this framework offers a different appeal. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned against the "baneful effects of the spirit of party" and cautioned that faction can become a vehicle by which ambitious figures "subvert the power of the people." Conservatarianism speaks directly to that concern by calling citizens away from political tribalism and back toward constitutional principle, local responsibility, and a shared duty to preserve republican liberty.
Institutional Reform Options
The following proposals are presented as institutional reform options rather than party platforms. They address questions of representation, federalism, accountability, and campaign finance that often arise in debates over constitutional self-government. Each proposal has supporters and critics, and each would involve serious legal, practical, and democratic tradeoffs.
House Representation and the One-for-Thirty-Thousand Clause
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the number of Representatives "shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand," establishing a population ceiling rather than a fixed chamber size.
Some reformers argue that a substantially larger House would bring representation closer to local communities, reduce the distance between citizens and lawmakers, and make congressional districts more responsive to neighborhood-level concerns. Critics, however, contend that a dramatic expansion of the House could create administrative burdens, complicate coalition-building, and make legislative procedure more unwieldy in a modern national government.
In current debates, this idea is often associated with proposals to restore smaller districts as a way to strengthen constituent access and dilute the influence of mass-media politics and nationalized campaign structures. Major questions would include chamber size, office capacity, cost, apportionment logistics, and whether greater numerical representation would in fact improve deliberation or simply reproduce existing partisan dynamics at a different scale.
Senate Selection, Federalism, and the Seventeenth Amendment
The original Constitution provided that senators would be chosen by state legislatures, whereas the Seventeenth Amendment established direct election by the people of each state. Supporters of a return to legislative selection argue that the earlier model gave state governments a more direct institutional voice in federal policy and better reflected the Constitution’s federal structure. Defenders of direct election reply that the Seventeenth Amendment increased democratic accountability, reduced deadlocks in state legislatures, and made senators more directly answerable to the electorate.
Some reform discussions pair this proposal with broader ideas about staggering terms differently, changing where senators primarily conduct official business, or reducing the role of fundraising in senatorial politics. Such proposals are typically framed as efforts to strengthen federalism and reduce dependence on national donor networks, but they also raise questions about democratic legitimacy, constitutional amendment requirements, state-level variation, and the practical consequences of redesigning a long-settled institution.
Campaign Finance and Constituency-Based Donor Limits
Another reform category focuses on restricting campaign donations to people within the constituency a candidate seeks to represent, such as registered voters in a congressional district, a state, or the nation as a whole in presidential elections. Proponents argue that this approach would align financial influence more closely with electoral stake holding, reduce dependence on outside donors, and make campaigns more responsive to the communities directly affected by the outcome.
Opponents respond that donor restrictions raise substantial First Amendment and campaign-finance law questions, may be difficult to administer fairly, and could produce unintended advantages for incumbents, wealthy self-funders, or candidates in districts with unequal fundraising capacity.
In practice, constituency-based funding proposals are usually discussed alongside broader concerns about transparency, dark-money influence, donor disclosure, and the balance between anti-corruption goals and constitutional protections for political participation. Any such reform would need to address definitions of voter eligibility, enforcement mechanisms, independent expenditures, digital fundraising, and the interaction between federal election law and state voter-registration systems.
Conclusion
Conservatarianism ultimately contends that a free and durable republic cannot be sustained by electoral competition alone, nor by ideological branding detached from institutions. It requires a constitutional order that restrains power, protects liberty, distributes authority, and obliges citizens to remain participants rather than spectators in public life.
For that reason, Conservatarianism is not presented here as a temporary fusion or tactical alliance. It is offered as a principled effort to recover an older American understanding of freedom—one in which rights and responsibilities, liberty and order, markets and morality, and local institutions and constitutional limits are understood to reinforce one another.
Its central ambition is not merely to win office, but to restore the habits, institutions, and constitutional boundaries without which republican liberty cannot endure—and to offer a home for Americans who value ordered freedom more than partisan combat.
© 2026 Ronomundo. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to share this document only if it is copied and distributed in full, without alteration.
How did a mentally ill person get a firearm in Washington, DC?
🚨 BREAKING: SHOTS FIRED just outside the White House
Multiple reporters are saying they've heard 30 SHOTS
Press has been rushed into the press briefing room by Secret Service
White House now on lockdown.
Countersnipers on rooftop
Pray for President Trump 🙏🏻
🎥 @selinawangtv, @ChrisFlanaganTV
@nicksortor How did a mentally ill person get a firearm in Washington, DC?
@AZ_Intel_ Another of thousands of cases where a person should have been confined to a mental hospital to protect the public.
Excellent messaging. It avoids political divisions and focuses on issues.
You Are Not Alone. Vote Spencer Pratt.
@CitizenFreePres Senator has to dodge accountability for her actions while trying to twist history.
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.8M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.3M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.2M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers