Were you horrified by the murder of Charlie Kirk? Were you outraged by the multiple assassination attempts on Donald Trump?

Do you think that X.com and other social media sites should not allow groups that cheer for the murder of their political opponents?

If so, please be aware that LPNH is once again calling for the assassination of Democratic politicians.

“We openly support the assassination of basically every elected Democrat in New Hampshire, and if you don’t have the balls to do that, vote GOP.” – LPNH, Sep 22, 2026

The Democrats are just one of the groups that the LPNH thinks they have the right to kill. Almost everyone in the state of New Hampshire belongs to a group that the LPNH has endorsed killing at one time or another.

Grok configrms that this post violates X.com’s current Violent Content policy (Feb 2025) bans speech that threatens, incites, glorifies, or expresses desire for violence.

The relevant buckets are:

• Wish of harm – expressing desire that others die or suffer physical harm
• Incitement – promoting or encouraging others to commit violence
• Glorification – praising or celebrating violence

The LPNH post is direct statement of support for political murder of identifiable office holders.

Calls to assassinate Kamala Harris

This is not the first time the LPNH has endorsed assassination of their political opponents.

NBC Boston: NH Libertarian Party posted a call for assassination of Kamala Harris before deleting it. – NBC Boston, Aug 2024

Calls to assassinate Andru Volinsky

NHPR: NH Libertarian Party calls for killing of Democrat Andru Volinsky over income tax. – NHPR, Mar 4, 2026

Calls to assassinate anyone who advocates for an income tax

NBC Boston: NH Libertarian Party posted a call for assassination of Kamala Harris before deleting it. – NBC Boston, Aug 2024

“Under libertarian ethical theory, it is perfectly permissible to kill him.” – LPNH, Mar 2026 (deleted)

Calls to kill communists (who they define as Democrats)

“it’s never murder to kill a communist” – LPNH, Apr 2026

“The death of a communist cannot be a murder, because communists are actively threatening you and your property.” – LPNH, Apr 2026

“If communists ever attempt to occupy your church, kill them.” – LPNH, Apr 2026

“We will kill all the communists in America for half this price” – LPNH, May 2026

“btw [1] refused to put ‘hang communists’ on a sign” – LPNH, Sep 2026

“Kill the socialist / Kill the communist” – LPNH, Apr 2025

“Can you imagine a world where every trantifa communist freak was just gunned down by armed men in the street?” – LPNH, Apr 2026

Who does the LPNH consider a Communist?

“Important to remember that Kamala Harris is literally a communist.” – LPNH, Jul 2024

“if you are a Democrat and you don’t know any communists, you are probably a communist.” – Jeremy Kauffman (LPNH Chair), Jun 2024

“Chase Oliver: ‘gay race communist.’ [2]: ‘controlled by gay race communists.’” – LPNH, Sep 2026

Call to Action

Here is what you can do to increase the odds that X.com will take action against the account:

1. Report the posts first, then the profile.

On the post: … Report Its abusive or harmful Threatening violence or physical harm.

Pick “Someone else or a specific group” (elected NH Democrats / public officials).

When it asks for more posts, attach the list of posts above.

Then report the profile the same way: profile … Report They are being abusive or harmful.

2. Also file the web form.

Help Center Staying safe on X violent threats / someone else https://help.x.com/en/forms

Paste permalinks. One report with 4-5 URLs beats 50 identical “ban them” clicks.

3. Get the named people to report.

X sometimes wants to hear from the target. A report from a named official or their counsel weighs more than a bystander report.

4. Law enforcement legal process is the only thing that reliably beats political-account inertia.

If the threat is treated as credible, NH AG / legislative security / Secret Service can send X a legal request. X says it will work with law enforcement. A user cannot fake that packet.

What usually fails:

• Coordinated mass reports (looks like manipulation)
• Tagging Safety and demanding a ban
• Calling it “hate speech against Democrats” (party is not a protected class on X)
• Expecting a permanent ban on first review

Correct policy bucket is Violent Content: wish of harm / incitement / expressing desire for violence. Not identity hate.

Realistic result: post removed, account survives, maybe a temp lock if they keep doing it. Permanent ban is possible only if Trust Safety treats this as a repeat high-severity pattern and skips the political-party public-interest carve-out. That carve-out exists, but Xs own page says exceptions for threats/glorification of violence are unlikely.

If the goal is stopping the speech rather than winning a platform fight, the parallel track already in motion is legislative security + NH AG (+ USSS if federal officials are in scope). X moves faster on a law-enforcement request than on a viral report campaign.

Notes