Thomas Massie files for 2028 political campaign



Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has filed for a political campaign in 2028 but says he has not decided whether to run.

Massie, a self-identified libertarian, lost the Republican primary campaign for Kentucky's 4th Congressional District to Ed Gallrein, a Navy SEAL veteran backed by President Donald Trump.

'This allows me to raise funds to continue my political operations supporting my position.'

"I filed with FEC for the 2028 House race," Massie wrote on his social media account on Tuesday.

"This allows me to raise funds to continue my political operations supporting my position as a current office holder and as a potential candidate for federal office," he added. "I haven't made a final decision about which office to seek, if I run."

The Republican campaign for the 4th Congressional District was the most expensive primary election for a House seat ever.

Gallrein is likely to easily win the seat in the heavily Republican district.

"The uniparty in D.C. finally found someone willing to be a rubber stamp for globalist billionaires, endless debt, foreign aid, and forever wars in failed candidate and Lindsey Graham donor Ed Gallrein," Massie said about his competitor.

Gallrein accused Massie of "burning every bridge" in Washington and voting against the president's political agenda.

RELATED: Thomas Massie’s viral Epstein poll reveals stunning top belief: He lives

Massie has been in office since 2012 and called the primary election an "inflection point" for the entire country. He also blamed campaign donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for turning what he said would be an easy victory into a loss for him.

"He was a bad guy. He deserves to lose," Trump said about Massie.

Despite Massie's recent loss, his supporters still have hope for his political future. Even during his concession speech the night of the primary, the crowd encouraged him to run for president in 2028.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Almonds feed a people. AI feeds a machine.



The artificial intelligence boom has become one of the biggest engines of the American economy. It has also triggered a growing backlash against the data centers that make the boom possible. Tech moguls have rushed to build giant warehouses packed with the computing power needed to run AI systems, but they have done almost nothing to explain to ordinary Americans why those facilities deserve so much land, water, electricity, and political favoritism.

That failure should have created an obvious opening for libertarians. Governments shower data-center projects with subsidies, wield eminent domain to seize land, and help politically connected corporations reshape local communities in the name of technological progress. A coherent libertarian response would attack the merger of state power and corporate power.

The first great use of AI will not be liberation. It will be surveillance and control.

Instead, many libertarians have chosen to cheer the expansion without asking what the technology will be used for or whom it will serve. Their quasi-religious loyalty to capital has pushed them into another foolish position and exposed the danger of turning an economic theory into a full worldview.

The tech elite insist that AI will revolutionize the world, but they have done almost nothing to tell average people how their own lives will improve. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs spin wild stories about superhuman intelligence and the automation of tens of millions of jobs. That does not sound like a sales pitch. It sounds like the setup for a science-fiction dystopia. The one concrete justification they offer is strategic: AI will supposedly define the future of warfare, and America must stay ahead of China.

That argument would carry more weight if the same people pushing AI were not also so committed to building the kind of technology most likely to be used against Americans. They are not preparing some noble shield for the republic. They are building tools that can make the United States look a lot more like the techno-authoritarian China they claim to fear.

Data centers consume staggering amounts of electricity, sometimes drawing as much power as a moderate-sized city. They also use enormous volumes of water, create nonstop noise, and disfigure the landscape. Developers have found ways to soften some of those costs by building new power infrastructure and improving cooling efficiency, but none of the problems have been solved. In the meantime, local communities absorb the burden.

The economic case is weak as well. Data centers create construction jobs while they are being built, but once construction ends, they employ surprisingly few people. Governments usually justify subsidies by promising long-term economic activity and job growth. In the case of data centers, corporations collect the incentives while communities get very little in return.

A sane political movement would notice that. Many libertarians have not. Instead of challenging subsidies and land seizures, they have fought to champion the projects. Nick Gillespie of Reason recently posted a chart showing that almond farms use far more water than AI data centers. Almonds are notoriously inefficient in water use, and agriculture probably does consume more water overall.

But the comparison gives away the problem. People eat food. AI, at least so far, mostly offers job displacement and surveillance.

RELATED: Your enemies aren’t mentally ill. They apparently just want to kill you.

Blaze Media Illustration

Libertarianism grew, in part, out of the Austrian school of economics, which is useful for understanding markets. It was never meant to serve as a complete theory of human life. Like Marxists, however, many libertarians have turned an economic framework into a totalizing ideology. Free markets, contract law, and voluntary exchange become an all-encompassing lens through which everything must be judged. Once that happens, it becomes difficult to see anything that does not show up in GDP.

The real question is not how much of a resource gets spent, but for what purpose. Most people would not give up a hand to save a cockroach. Most would give up their lives to save a child. On paper, preserving the cockroach may look like the more efficient transaction. Only a lunatic would fail to understand why no sane person would ever choose it over the child.

Economics helps explain financial exchange, but in its hunger for abstraction, it often strips away the human element that drives actual decisions. Treat almonds and AI as interchangeable “economic activity,” and you erase the context that gives moral meaning to both. That is the error every ideology makes. Grand unified theories comfort the rational mind because they promise predictive clarity. Then they collide with actual human beings living in actual places.

Kevin O’Leary recently went on Tucker Carlson’s podcast to praise the record-setting data center he wants to build in Utah. Carlson pressed him repeatedly to name a job AI would create for ordinary Americans. O’Leary could not identify a single one. He fell back on vague assurances that new technologies always create jobs somewhere in the future. The one benefit he seemed sure about was that AI might help America defend Taiwan in a future war with China. That is a revealing answer to citizens asking how this technology will help their own country.

RELATED: The liberal guide to committing national suicide

Blaze Media Illustration

Many libertarians now seem to support data centers out of sheer loyalty to capital itself. Economic activity becomes an end in itself. Progress, no matter the cost, is presumed to produce more liberty. That is delusional. The first great use of AI will not be liberation. It will be surveillance and control. The same corporate and political class that backed vaccine mandates, digital surveillance, censorship, and biometric passes during COVID is now demanding trust on AI. Nothing in its conduct suggests a change of heart.

Our tech oligarchs lined up with Democrats, outsourced American jobs, embraced censorship, and showed enormous appetite for monitoring the population. They are not trustworthy allies.

The backlash against data centers may lack intellectual polish, but the instinct is sound. The elites driving AI are not on our side, and Americans have no reason to sacrifice their communities, resources, and liberty on behalf of people who plainly intend to use this technology against them.

Someone Tell Elon Musk We Already Have A Third Party. It’s Called The Primary Process

Every so often, some prominent person gives himself a dopamine boost by loudly declaring that the American two-party system is “broken,” and thus “it’s time” for “a third party.” Elon Musk is the latest, and the fact that he’s the richest person on Earth doesn’t make the idea any less naive and superficial. Musk last […]

Can populism break America’s two-party system?



On a recent episode of “Kibbe on Liberty,” Matt Kibbe sat down with nationally recognized political changemaker Steven Olikara, senior fellow for political transformation at the USC Schwarzenegger Institute and the founder of Millennial Action Project (now Future Caucus), the largest nonpartisan organization of young elected leaders in the U.S.

In their conversation, the two expressed their hopes that populism — a political approach that aims to represent the interests of commoners against a perceived elite or establishment — will eventually conquer the two-party system that crushes the voice of the people.

The current political culture in America, says Olikara, has both Republicans and Democrats saying, “We know what's best for you,” but what they should be saying is, “We want to hear from you.”

Kibbe, a self-described “libertarian populist,” agrees, arguing that populism is "the right side of history because the other side is the machine” — “a collusion of government power and corporate power.”

The question is, can populism garner enough support to break the political establishment?

The answer, says Olikara, is yes. Support for populism is high. The issue is the entrenched elites who rig the system to snuff out any non-establishment opponent.

In his experience campaigning in the 2022 U.S. Senate primary in Wisconsin as a Democrat with a strong bent towards populism, his team would “get the most applause out of all the candidates” at campaign events, and yet they could rarely secure a debate to get their “ideas out to a statewide audience” because “all the other campaigns in the party were making an extra effort to make sure there were no debates.”

On the rare occasion he did secure a debate, he was often declared the winner. However, “just as those sparks were flying, the Democratic establishment effectively ended the race 10 days before the election,” says Olikara. “They said, ‘We don't want to wait to hear what the people have to say. We're going to violate our bylaws and endorse the establishment candidate."’

Despite Olikara’s popularity, Mandela Barnes, a well-known Democrat with strong party support, was endorsed by key figures, making his win in the primary nearly certain.

“I got phone calls from a number of senior Democratic leaders calling to apologize to me why they're not only breaking their bylaws but breaking their promise that they had made to me to be neutral in the primary,” says Olikara, noting that these leaders will admit they’re more concerned about money and control than the people’s voices being heard.

“If you just let ideas breathe a little bit, if you let people express their voices, that's the kind of democracy I believe in,” he says.

Kibbe shares Olikara’s sentiments, comparing the current two-party system to having “Taylor Swift” or “the most obnoxious country musician” as your only options for music. “I like the democracy that is Spotify, where I can listen to my weird, very fringy ... versions of music that I like,” he analogizes.

Unfortunately, for now it’s Swift or honky-tonk. “They make it so that you have to choose their candidate or that really bad guy on the other side,” Kibbe laments. “We go through this cycle every two to four years, and it's pretty disheartening for anybody that imagines that we could give people in democratic America choices that they would actually be proud of.”

However, President Trump’s 2016 rise to power as a system-breaker is proof that populist movements can challenge the two-party establishment.

“He's the first guy to sort of take over a party, at least since maybe since Abe Lincoln,” says Kibbe. “Now he is the party, so it was impossible to run against him in his last primary.” But even though Trump proved the system could be broken, “the Democrats seem still hell-bent on preventing a real primary.”

Olikara is hopeful that in 2028, Democrats will allow “the first truly open democratic primary since 2007 and 2008,” when Barack Obama — “not the establishment candidate” — “emerged and defeated the Clinton machine,” a victory he says is “on par with Trump winning the 2016 Republican primary against the establishment.”

“The moment is perfect for it — like there's clearly no field-clearing candidate. It's wide-open. Democrats are in the wilderness now, which usually means a new voice, a new movement, can emerge,” he says. “It's all set up for them, and yet there's a good chance they still shoot themselves in the foot.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Matt Kibbe?

To enjoy more of Matt's liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Don’t kill the survivors’: Why killing chickens won’t stop the bird flu



Highly pathogenic avian influenza has spread to all 50 states, and the number of commercial birds that have died — or have been killed under the Biden administration — is over 166 million.

This is not only driving up the price of eggs but destroying the ability for chickens to adapt.

Self-described "Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer” Joel Salatin believes the government is handling this situation the opposite of how it should be.

“All of life is adapting, trying to adapt to new attacks that are coming, mutations, and trying to survive,” he tells BlazeTV host James Poulos on “Zero Hour,” adding, “We could talk about that in regard to bird flu.”


“Here we are in this big bird flu thing, 166 million chickens killed in the last 24 months, and probably only one or two million were actually sick,” he continues. “All the rest of them were fine. But we have this eradication idea that if one in a hundred thousand is sick, we kill all, we sterilize everything.”

But when you sterilize the world, animals as well as humans won’t be equipped to handle new strains of viruses as well as they could.

“And so the virus is trying to adapt, to become more virulent, more deadly, if you will,” Salatin explains. “And so the chickens that either don’t get it or got it and got over it, and they're many that do, to kill them, we deny chickens the chance for the most vibrant, virulent, immunological ones to adapt, to give us progeny, that is now keeping up with the virus.”

“If your immune system never gets a chance to work, then it’s not an immune system,” Poulos chimes in.

“This extermination policy is just insanity,” Salatin agrees, adding, “When you have a disease, you don’t kill the survivors.”

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Milei’s Argentina: Free markets, high stakes, and a bold gamble



During my visits to Argentina in 2022, 2023, and 2024, I saw firsthand the movement that propelled anarcho-capitalist Javier Milei to the presidency. His leadership has drawn significant attention from both left-wing anti-capitalists and libertarians. Some critics argue that his policies are deepening poverty, while his supporters view him as a beacon of hope.

Argentina holds a grim distinction. No other country has experienced such a dramatic economic decline over the past century. In the early 20th century, Argentina’s per capita income ranked among the highest in the world. The phrase riche comme un Argentin — “rich as an Argentine” — was commonly used at the time.

What can Argentina’s experience teach us? Economic conditions often must deteriorate dramatically before capitalist reformers can gain traction.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Argentina’s per capita income surpassed that of Italy, Japan, and France. By 1895, some estimates ranked it as the highest in the world. The country also recorded an extraordinary 6% annual GDP growth for the 43 years leading up to World War I — the largest sustained growth in recorded history.

Argentina’s economic success was not solely driven by raw material exports. Between 1900 and 1914, the country’s industrial production tripled, achieving growth comparable to Germany and Japan. This boom coincided with remarkable social progress. In 1869, only 12% to 15% of the workforce belonged to the middle class. By 1914, that figure had climbed to 40%. During the same period, the illiteracy rate dropped by more than half.

However, Argentina’s success story gave way to a century of unprecedented decline. The country’s real GDP per capita in 2018 had barely risen from its 1913 level — the lowest growth among all nations with available data for both years.

From Peronism to deregulation

During my visit, I met Fausto Spotorno, chief economist at the Centro de Estudios Económicos at consultancy firm OJF. He shared a striking statistic: Since 1945, Argentina has almost continuously faced double-digit inflation, with one major exception. In the 1990s, President Carlos Menem pegged the currency to the U.S. dollar, eliminating inflation for a decade. However, the move made Argentine goods uncompetitive, severely hurting exports.

For decades, Argentina remained deeply committed to statism. Peronism, a government-centered ideology, functioned as the country’s national religion. But by 2022, I could already sense a shift in public sentiment.

I traveled to several cities, including Corrientes, a place that reminded me of Southern France with its palm trees and proximity to one of the world’s largest rivers. There, I met Eduardo Tassano, the city’s mayor. Though he identified as a social democrat, he surprised me when asked what he would change about Argentina. Without hesitation, he called for labor market deregulation and tax cuts — clear signs that libertarian ideas were gaining traction.

When my survey on perceptions of the market economy was conducted in 2022, the results showed a major shift in public sentiment. More than a year before Milei’s election victory, a majority of Argentines viewed the market economy more favorably than people in most other countries.

That same year, I met several key politicians from Milei’s movement. Their innovative marketing strategies stood out. Milei gained widespread attention by launching a lottery: Anyone who registered via social media had a chance to win his final month’s congressional salary. The payout — 350,000 pesos, or about $1,800 in May 2022 — was significant, considering Argentina’s average income was around 60,000 pesos.

The idea resonated. Within three months, two million Argentines signed up for the lottery. Milei wanted to send a clear message: “I didn’t go into politics for the money.”

Skepticism turns to confidence

I returned to Argentina immediately after Milei’s election. When I arrived on Nov. 19, 2023, I found two WhatsApp messages waiting on my phone.

“We won,” a representative of Milei’s party wrote. For the past year and a half, I had often discussed Milei’s rise and believed he had a strong chance of winning.

The second message came from José Fucs, editor at large of O Estado de S. Paulo, Brazil’s leading newspaper. “You were the first one to tell me he had huge support in Argentina, mainly among younger people, and could win the election,” he wrote.

I wondered whether Argentines would continue supporting Milei, even if his free market reforms initially worsened conditions. Historically, other successful capitalist reforms — such as those under Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Leszek Balcerowicz in Poland — caused short-term economic pain before delivering long-term gains. Would the people have the patience and resilience to endure this lean period?

By August 2024, I returned to Argentina for the third time. Public sentiment remained pro-Milei, with polls showing that more than 50% of the population supported him.

In Córdoba, Argentina’s second-largest city, I spoke at length with Mayor Alfredo Cornejo. A member of the Radical Party, he initially doubted Milei’s approach. But he told me his skepticism had turned into confidence. In his view, Argentina was now moving in the right direction.

A bracing dose of liberty

In Buenos Aires, I met Agustin Etchebarne, general director of the libertarian think tank Libertad y Progreso. He noted that Milei continued to enjoy strong support from young people and the poor — his core voting bloc.

“If they criticize him at all,” Etchebarne explained, “it’s only because they believe he isn’t being radical enough. They want him to take even tougher action against the despised Casta that brought the country to ruin.”

When Milei took office, Argentina’s inflation rate stood at nearly 26% per month. Now, it has fallen to 2.3%. The poverty rate initially increased, as I expected, but by the end of 2024, it had dropped below its pre-Milei level.

One of Milei’s most significant reforms involved bypassing intermediaries. Instead of funneling funds through left-leaning political organizations that claimed to support the poor but siphoned off money, his government now allocates aid directly to those in need.

“Milei gives the money directly to the poor, while the left-wing organizations are left empty-handed,” Etchebarne told me.

This marks a key difference between Milei and former conservative President Mauricio Macri. Macri unintentionally strengthened his left-wing opponents by distributing massive cash payments during his administration. By eliminating those intermediaries, Milei has ensured that Argentina’s poorest citizens receive more direct assistance than before.

What can Argentina’s experience teach us? Similar to the United Kingdom in the 1970s, economic conditions often must deteriorate dramatically before capitalist reformers like Thatcher or Milei can gain traction. But even that is not enough. A shift in public opinion must precede meaningful reform.

Before Thatcher’s rise, influential think tanks such as the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute for Economic Affairs helped shape public discourse. In Argentina, libertarian think tanks played a similar role in laying the groundwork for Milei’s presidency. Now, he is reaping the benefits of their efforts.

Editor’s note: This article is an excerpt from Rainer Zitelmann’s new book, “The Origins of Poverty and Wealth: My World Tour and Insights from the Global Libertarian Movement.”

Argentina's 'chainsaw' president tells the UN to shove its 'socialist' 'Pact for the Future'



Javier Milei, Argentina's self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalist" president, took office in December 2023. In the months since, he has taken a "chainsaw" to his predecessors' failed leftist policies as well as to some critics' doubts.

This week, he shredded globalist hopes that the Argentine Republic would be party to the United Nations' "Pact for the Future," telling the General Assembly, "Argentina will not back any policy that implies the restriction of individual freedoms or trade, nor the violation of the natural rights of individuals."

Milei — whose debut address to the U.N. took place within hours of reports indicating that Argentina's economic activity beat estimates, growing 1.7% in July — invited other nations to join him not only in "opposing this pact, but in the creation of a new agenda for this noble institution: the freedom agenda."

After noting that the U.N. served a noble purpose in the wake of World War II, Milei stated it has since "stopped upholding the principles outlined in its founding declaration and begun to mutate" — from an organization that once defended human rights to "one of the main drivers of the systematic violation of freedom."

Milei dragged the U.N. for its support of "global quarantines during the year 2020," which he suggested qualify as crimes against humanity, as well as its appeasement of "bloody dictatorships," such as Venezuela, and criticism of Israel.

According to the Argentine president, the U.N. was created "as a shield to protect the realm of men" but has "transformed into a multi-tentacled leviathan that seeks to decide not only what each nation-state should do but also how all the citizens of the world should live."

'It is basically an attempt to build a totalitarian system of conformity across the business sector.'

Milei suggested that instead of seeking peace, the U.N. now seeks to impose an ideology on its members.

Distinguishing himself from a great many onlookers as a "libertarian liberal economist" rather than a politician, Milei warned of the threat posed by "collectivist policies" baked into the U.N.'s doomed 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The U.N.'s 2030 agenda includes 17 interlinked global goals designed to "transform the world."

Paul Tice, an adjunct professor of finance at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University, indicated in his recent book, "The Race to Zero: How ESG Investing Will Crater the Global Financial System," that:

Climate action (SDG #13) provides the intersectional glue for the entire progressive agenda embedded in the UN's sustainability program, with each individual cause drawing strength and further validation from the moral imperative of saving the planet from fossil fuels because, in the UN's telling, climate change also affects global health, poverty, hunger, and national security, and 'its adverse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable development.

Tice emphasized that sustainability is part of a broader anti-capitalist campaign that "borrows elements from both the totalitarian and reformist approaches of the past."

"It is basically an attempt to build a totalitarian system of conformity across the business sector based on moral suasion, thereby avoiding the administrative cost and public sector responsibility associated with outright state ownership or direct government intervention," wrote Tice.

'[The sustainability agenda] is nothing more than a super-national socialist government program.'

The professor noted further that "it embraces both state and progressive priorities but is mainly the fabrication of a permanent supranational bureaucracy of technocrats residing at multilateral agencies led by the UN and international NGOS such as the WEF, which effectively insulates it from accountability at the ballot box."

Sharing similar concerns about the U.N. agenda and its broader sustainability push, Milei suggested that the U.N. is now effectively a model of "super-national governance by international bureaucrats who intend to impose a certain way of life on the citizens of the world."

According to Milei, the "Pact for the Future," which 143 countries approved Sunday, is par for the course.

The pact overlaps with the 2030 sustainability agenda, laying out objectives for a multilateral approach to addressing changing weather patterns, so-called reproductive rights, and digital cooperation.

"Although well-intentioned in its goals, [the pact] is nothing more than a super-national socialist government program that aims to solve the problems of modernity with solutions that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states and violate the right to life, liberty, and property of individuals," said the Argentine president. "It is an agenda that aims to solve poverty, inequality, and discrimination with legislation that only deepens these issues."

Milei suggested that the pact is another poorly conceived utopian program that will not withstand or tolerate humans' incompatible nature and choices.

"We want to officially express our dissent regarding the 'Pact of the Future' signed on Sunday," said Milei, concluding with a version of a quote from Thomas Paine: "Those who wish to reap the blessings of freedom must, as men, endure the fatigue of defending it."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Milei is defying expectations and pulling the Argentinian economy out of a leftist-engineered death spiral



Since taking office in December, Javier Milei, Argentina's self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalist" president, has taken a "chainsaw" to his predecessors' failed leftist policies and increasingly to critics' doubts.

Recent economic signals out of the South American nation indicate Milei's free market reforms could ultimately usher Argentina from ruin to renaissance.

Background

Argentina was one of the world's richest nations in the early 20th century. However, it was reduced to a shambles after six major military coups and several decades of unchecked spending. A 2016 paper in the Journal of Development Studies indicated that Argentina, which has defaulted on its sovereign debt nine times, was the only country in the world considered to be "developed" in the year 1900 but "developing" in 2000.

When the country's former leftist President Alberto Fernandez left office late last year, Argentina owed $44 billion to the International Monetary Fund; had a trade deficit of $43 billion; had international creditors knocking at the door; had nearly half of its population stuck in abject poverty; and was poised to see inflation exceed 211%.

Milei had no plans of seeing his socialist predecessors' destructionist campaign through to its inevitable conclusion. After all, he had campaigned instead on executing his so-called Chainsaw Plan.

"The thievery of politics is over. Long live freedom, damn it!" said Milei.

Blaze News previously reported that this plan entailed selling off state-owned companies, slashing public spending, reducing and simplifying taxes, and eliminating various government agencies. He also suggested the country would adopt the U.S. dollar and shutter Argentina's central bank.

In a video that went viral before the election, he excitedly ripped the names of various government ministries off a white board, stating, "The thievery of politics is over. Long live freedom, damn it!"

Voters ultimately decided to give Milei more than a white board to work with.

Milei goes to work

As promised, the 53-year-old former right-wing economist who regards climate change to be a "socialist plot" kicked things off in December with an executive order cutting the number of government ministries from 18 to nine and relieving over 5,000 bureaucrats of their duties.

Milei's government subsequently allowed for its peso currency to devalue by 54%, and then his economic minister, Luis Caputo, indicated the country would be cutting spending by at least 3% of GDP.

While making strides toward dollarizing the currency, Milei's government also purchased over $5 billion in dollars to build up its reserves and issued "Bopreal" bonds to tackle import debts.

Late last month, Argentina's lower house signed off on key chapters of Javier's omnibus bill, including the privatization of some public companies as well as the granting of expanded executive powers on administrative, financial and economic matters the president, reported Bloomberg.

If the country's Senate approves of the plans this month, Milei will be able to fire more state workers, cut costly subsidies, and eliminate various government bodies.

Despite facing caltrops in the nation's Congress where his allies do not enjoy a majority as well as challenges from both provincial governments and unions, Milei has continued to implement his chainsaw strategy whilst signaling increasing alignment with the United States — to the great disappointment of the China-led BRICS intergovernmental organization.

Beginning to see results

Milei announced last week that the country had recorded its first quarterly budget surplus since 2008, reported the Telegraph.

Although 0.2% of GDP is a relatively small surplus, it was a herculean feat for Argentina, granted it has reportedly run up a deficit in 113 of the last 123 years.

This week, the country's central bank — which has yet to be shuttered — cut interest rates for the third time in three weeks, down to 50%.

"The Argentine leader is providing a blueprint for how to break free," wrote financial columnist Matthew Lynn.

Although inflation rates reached a cumulative figure of 287% in March, USA Today reported Milei's shock measures have resulted in lower inflation rates every month for the past three months.

Ian Bremmer, the founder of the Eurasia Group, reportedly indicated Wednesday that contrary to the collapse expected by so-called experts, "Monthly inflation has come down every month for the past three months, from 25% in December to nearly 10% in March, with forecasters expecting the April figure to come in at single digits."

Bremmer explained that the "[Milei] government did this by turning the 5.5% budget deficit it inherited into the country's first surplus in over a decade, while boosting the central bank's reserves, lowering its benchmark interest rates, and reducing the money supply — all without destabilizing currency and financial markets."

The Telegraph indicated that if Milei is able to execute on his plan to get the country's shale oil and gas out of the ground using tried and proven technologies, the economy may make further leaps and bounds.

Matthew Lynn, a financial columnist who writes for Money Week and the Telegraph, noted, "the Argentine leader is providing a blueprint for how to break free. The global economic elite keeps lecturing us on why we need more government and a more powerful state despite the painful lack of results. Argentina is challenging it in dramatic fashion."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump to speak at 2024 Libertarian National Convention: 'WE WILL WORK TOGETHER AND WIN!'



Former President Donald Trump is slated to speak at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention later in May.

"The Libertarian National Party, the Party of Principle, announced today that President Donald J. Trump has responded to an invitation, and challenge, from the Libertarian Party to speak at its National Convention, and directly address concerns voiced by its members," a press release reads.

The presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee described libertarians as "some of the most independent and thoughtful thinkers in" the nation, according to the press release.

"We must all work together to help advance freedom and liberty for every American, and a second Trump Administration will achieve that goal. I look forward to speaking at the Libertarian Event, which will be attended by many of my great friends. We all have to remember that our goal is to defeat the Worst President in the History of the United States, BY FAR, Crooked Joe Biden. If Libertarians join me and the Republican Party, where we have many Libertarian views, the election won't even be close. We cannot have another four years of death, destruction, and incompetence. WE WILL WORK TOGETHER AND WIN!" Trump said, according to the press release.

Libertarian National Committee chair Angela McArdle has indicated that the move to include Trump is not "a secret plot to make Trump our candidate." She has noted, "Our invitation to President Biden still stands."

The Libertarian Party opposes "the administration of the death penalty by the state" and "supports the decriminalization of prostitution," according to the party's platform, which also states, "we favor the repeal of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Voters — And One Alleged Signature Gatherer — Say Their Names Were Forged For Arizona Candidate

At least four voters say their signatures were forged, and now a man listed as one of the signature gatherers claims his name was also forged.