[Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Everyone declare a holiday and kill the fatted calf.  I agree with almost
everything Joshua said except I do not share the presupposition against
volunteers (not explicit but suggested because they were just "etc.").  One
thing I want to highlight:

*Part of that strategy, of course, might be "conduct some research and
decide X."  Part of it must be "we wish to be presented as ..."  *

*That is what I am saying.  Research is just part.  We MUST decide on the
other as well. And if all I hear is well, such and such is a small
percentage of the population - it isn't popular - etc - well I'm not that
Libertarian.  I am the Libertarian who cares about the freedoms of even the
.001 with no political voice.*

-Caryn  Ann

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm only chiming in on this particular sub-topic to explain why I'm not
> chiming in more substantively on this particular sub-topic, and to offer
> some opinions on other matters.  I agree with a good portion of what's been
> said, and disagree with some of it - but I'm not convinced, at the moment,
> that my opinion matters.  I think it will matter if the LNC is asked to
> take up the question of specific content, and I'll give it then - but my
> hope is that the LNC will not take up that topic.  Rather, I'd like to see
> the LNC deal with the governance structures involved (and certainly not the
> people and personalities) and with overall strategy.  On that point, while
> I have pretty strong and well-known opinions, I care more about the
> governance structures and the LNC being strategically active, to the point
> where I would prefer we adopt a broad strategy with which I entirely
> disagree to not adopting one at all.  But, as I've pointed out before,
> that's not reactive, and it's not about the Satanism post, which most of
> the non-LP internet has forgotten about.
>
> As for us Libertarians, well, Dreamers have been deported, the Justice
> Department is doing everything but its job, our President is making truly
> awful diplomatic choices (unless the goal is provoking war with North
> Korea) combined with confusing and contradictory actions, and we are
> witnessing an attack on global trade, free movement, and the international
> system not seen since WWII.  Furthermore, (getting into territory less
> universal to Libertarians, but very important to me), we are seeing
> evidence slowly accumulate that this nation is being run by people working
> actively with hostile foreign powers, first in the election, and later in
> policy choices, including, in my view, an economically suicidal decision
> which will prove incredibly beneficial to Russia.
>
> From a purely partisan perspective, meanwhile, the Republican Party,
> although it may choose to save itself, is very slowly, and very publicly,
> going through a collapse of public trust and belief.  Unlike the fall of
> the Whigs, this is happening in real time, and so is harder to identify,
> but if the GOP continues to stand by officials who we are finding sold out
> this nation's interests to a foreign, hostile power, it will in the not so
> distant future cease to be a viable party.  The LP, then, will stand
> between this nation conceived in liberty and one party rule.  In light of
> that, I think we owe it to this nation to professionalize our messaging,
> speak with a clear voice, and demonstrate our competency, rationality, and
> ability to govern.  (As to Satanism, well, we always encourage people not
> to choose the LESSER evil, don't we?)
>
> My interest here is not reactionary.  It is something I have felt we
> needed to do since I joined this board, and something I have brought up
> multiple times.  Continued references to reactions are, in my opinion,
> unfair.
>
> On content - I am not a PR professional, and in my view, it is the job of
> this board to govern while using professionals, not to attempt to be all
> things to all people.  As such, I believe we should get our governance
> structures in order, then craft a strategy, then expect someone - we can
> decide whether that is staff, consultants, outside professionals, etc. - to
> execute it.  Part of that strategy, of course, might be "conduct some
> research and decide X."  Part of it must be "we wish to be presented as
> ..."
>
> I would also point out that, no matter what, things will always go wrong.
> There will always be embarrassments, there will always be missteps - and
> expecting accountability structures to catch all of them, and prevent us
> from ever looking bad in public, is a fool's errand. If you're mot making
> mistakes, you're not taking risks, and if you're not taking risks,
> particularly when you occupy our position, you're not going to succeed.
> What good governance does is makes sure that those missteps happen in the
> context of a bigger project that is aimed at concrete, measurable goals.  I
> have, for as long as I have been on this board, felt that the problem with
> our messaging was not occasional failures, but the lack of a coherent whole
> - and I feel that way about all our messaging, not only the volunteer.  I
> feel that that is a problem that comes from the top, i.e. us.  We do not
> have a clear, coherent strategy, and so our messaging is a bunch of
> discrete, disconnected statements, donation requests, other solicitations,
> and memes, which taken together, do not tell a clear, persuasive story.
> Successful campaigns (political or not) do just that.  I have suggested,
> and continue to suggest, what I think is a strong, principled, and
> currently relevant theme for the LP - "Break the Bonds."  Could religious
> freedom with within that?  Most certainly.  Nonetheless, if there is more
> support for some other coherent plan, let's do that.  However, a printed
> letter asking for money while pointing to spoiled races, followed by an
> email about an elected official, followed by a meme suggesting that
> Congress is unnecessary, followed by a post about activist training,
> followed by a donation solicitation talking about an office, does not tell
> a story.  None of those things are bad, and all could be done in alignment
> with a common theme.
>
> How would that work for "Break the Bonds?"  I'm glad you asked.  The
> printed letter, rather than pointing to spreads and encouraging the spoiler
> narrative, could speak about how voters are Breaking the Bonds of
> attachment to the party of their birth, seeking to freely choose on a race
> by race basis.  (This isn't our perfect outcome, but given our position, it
> is certainly an improvement for us.)  The email about a new elected
> official could focus on their broad goals in office, framing them in a
> Break the Bonds context.  Rather than simply "look, someone won!" we can
> point to crucial vote they've already cast and say what Bond it Breaks.
> The meme could encourage the viewer to Break the Bond of attachment to the
> structures of their national government, in favor of connecting to broader
> truths and the universality of freedom, suggesting that institutions are
> valuable only insofar as they broaden freedom, and become simply another
> set of Bonds otherwise.  The post about activist training could try to
> engage the people who went to their airports, whom Howard Dean described as
> "not typical Democrats," but rather young people, mostly politically
> inactive, who think globally, and are more concerned with the rights of
> those around the globe than with the material benefit of those who live
> next door - who are already Breaking the Bonds of nationality and seeking
> commonality with all those who yearn to be free.  The office solicitation
> can avoid talking about the benefits to us of paying off the mortgage early
> - such financial considerations being, first, our problem as the board, and
> second, not terribly inspiring - and instead focus on the ways our DC
> location is helping us to Break the Bonds, and inviting the very, very
> lucky recipient of such a letter to Break the Bonds with us.
>
> Now, I have no idea what the finished products would look like - I would
> leave that to people who know how to design such things.  That's the
> difference between governance (our job), management (part of staff's job),
> and execution (everyone's job).  Nor do I know what issues should be
> focused on - I just know that, under such a strategy, whatever issues they
> were would be fit into the theme.  The theme would not drive the choice of
> what to say, although other strategic considerations would, of course.
>
> But before any of that can happen, governance structures by which to
> execute such things are needed.  That was what I understood the committee
> to be making recommendations about.  I will support any proposal brought
> back that gives us better governance structures, and oppose any proposal
> that, in my opinion, gives us worse governance structures.  I think I have
> some time to worry about that, though, since the committee hasn't even
> fully populated itself yet.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is not often I disagree with David, but it happens, and it happened
>> here- but only partially.  (this goes beyond the "satanic post" - I
>> disagreed with that post for many reasons I laid out over and over and
>> after Nick said okay delete it, I was the one who actually hit the delete
>> button)
>>
>> *First, Alicia raises great points about using other people's religious
>> texts.  *Words mean different things in different religions, and most
>> people don't like political parties purposefully trying to use their texts
>> basically to say "See, God is a libertarian." (this is putting aside the
>> atheist ones).  She worded that perfectly.
>>
>> I like the Free to Believe concept and I think it IS actually very HIGH
>> on the list of people's concerns. It can be done without trying to
>> appropriate the religious texts (and there was a definite mixed message
>> issue in mixing irreligion with religion and timing, and well all the
>> issues I already very publicly had with that post) by just showing
>> *PEOPLE* and that these *PEOPLE *are welcome and do not have to abandon
>> their traditions to be Libertarians or maybe having PEOPLE and not the
>> PARTY giving their view on how they can be X faith or No Faith and be a
>> Libertarian.
>>
>> Where I disagree is that now we start saying we only care about the
>> popular issues (*or appear to be saying that)*.  MOST PEOPLE don't care
>> about legalizing prostitution or *all *drugs. Trump has shown MOST
>> PEOPLE do not care about free movement of people and really do not care to
>> speak up for Muslims.  I can name a lot of things that many people don't
>> care about that we have cared about and* the biggest complaint from
>> those who have supported us for years is that we have stopped dong that
>> consistently*.  That all that matters is the almighty polls and the
>> fickle vote, principles be damned.  I also hear that well, those people
>> will just have to accept that now we have to go after others.  I keep
>> hearing we have to stop playing to libertarians - but what those
>> libertarians hear is that they don't matter anymore.  And I hear from many
>> (not here) that the Party really doesn't care - that base is expendable
>> (and the litany of insults comes.... you don't want to grow, you are just a
>> debate club, you are politically autistic, etc.)   And it makes me wonder
>> how we think they became libertarians to begin with.  Very few of us are
>> second generation.  We go after others by giving them libertarianism.  If
>> our ideas are so loathsome and wrong that they can't be said, we are all
>> wasting our time and are terrible people.  I obviously don't believe that.
>>
>> *In the 1970s, I can guarantee you Joe America did not care about gay
>> rights.  But we did.  *The Libertarian Party today seems to have
>> forgotten there is a whole other frontier we should and could push on. The
>> rights of people who believe that a "couple" isn't the only relational
>> arrangement and they suffer.... but that is a tangent but I think a good
>> symptom of how we are content to play it safe.  Because we worry that this
>> won't sell in Apple Pie USA.  If that is our worry, we picked the wrong
>> horse to back - and I think Americans ARE hungry for real freedom.
>>
>> And when we say we are going to care about X group because they are X in
>> the number of issues etc we are telling some other Y group, who also has
>> liberty issues, that we are embarrassed by their issues and well, we
>> polled, and not that many people care about your subjugation, so too bad,
>> so sad.  I believe we need to not only be different in our views but in our
>> approaches and we are buying old party and old world approaches.... this
>> isn't saying we have great approaches now  but it is saying we need to
>> think more about how to be like the early lean and hungry Apple who broke
>> all molds and not a mini-me of traditionalism and old party thinking.  One
>> thing has become my mantra  over the past six months: * I will say the
>> word abolish.*  I think there are multitudes that are just waiting to
>> hear people boldly saying what they actually believe.  With respect.  With
>> consideration.  With nobility.  But with frank honesty, treating them as
>> mature adults who can handle the truth. We are not the priests and
>> priestesses of secret dangerous knowledge that the laity cannot handle so
>> we must mediate it to them in diluted form.
>>
>> We have never been that Party, and it isn't the Party the core base
>> believes we are.  I can tell you, I'm not THAT Libertarian that says, well,
>> your freedom isn't on the top list of Americans, (it didn't poll so well in
>> Main Street USA) so I am not going to talk about it.  It won't earn me
>> popularity, don't you see?   I'm THAT Libertarian that will step on the
>> third rails of politics IF it means defending the rights of the individual
>> and challenging the cult of the omnipotent state.  Trump broke all current
>> molds - people want something different.  We need to be that something
>> different that isn't something tyrannical and awful, but noble, beautiful,
>> bold, and courageous freedom.
>>
>> Turning from that, this shows then a false issue.  *We can do this great
>> targeting, but we must never be unwilling to take the risks and be the
>> voice for the unpopular opinions too.*  We can do both, but I keeping
>> hearing about playing it safe and becoming bean counters.  I will not go
>> along with that, I will continue to say we are the voice for the unpopular
>> as well as the popular, just like we were for gay folks in the 70s.  As the
>> meme says, "Why Choose Just One?"
>>
>> And though I am NOT claiming this is a Libertarian verse, I am a
>> Christian, and it applies by analogy.  *"When salt loses its saltiness
>> it is not longer fit for anything but to thrown into the trash heap."*
>>
>> Half of what I hear out of Libertarian talking heads (again this is
>> general - not directed to any of my fellows) is that we should lose our
>> saltiness.  It is unbalanced.  We must do this targeted sort of thing.  We
>> must talk to the mothers of sons who are rotting in jail for using,
>> selling, or possessing a plant. We grieve with them. We must denounce the
>> brutal bombings overseas and those parents who have the horror of the
>> maiming and killing of their loves ones.  We shudder in horror with them.  *But
>> we must also speak to those who may not have the numbers to ever get
>> political attention or wooing because their liberty matters too.  *
>>
>> And the minute I hear anything about our "top priority"  but not the fact
>> that our Bylaws tell us what it is - *to implement and give voice to the
>> principles in the Statement of Principles*, I know we are using the
>> wrong starting point.  Our SoP does not say, "We, the members of the
>> Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state on popular
>> easy issues and defend the rights of the individual that don't anger the
>> majority and who poll well because it is winning at all costs."
>>
>> We are the vanguard.  We are the bleeding edge.  We are the ones that say
>> to the Overton Window- "Oh yeah?  How about pushing you a bit northward,
>> shall we?"
>>
>> *I will not bean-count what rights are worth supporting * -  liberty is
>> also for the person doing the things many people don't like but are their
>> right to do.  *Speaking truth to power isn't playing it safe and letting
>> the polls tell us what issues we discuss.*
>>
>> As far as that Policy Manual section (thank you Aaron), it is even slower
>> than what actually happened here.  The post went up, it was seen, numerous
>> people including myself contacted Nick immediately who has the authority to
>> pull it himself without needing a majority, and he made the decision to
>> pull.  If Nick had declined, the Policy Manual steps could have then
>> ensured that the LNC could veto that decision by informing the Secretary.
>> Going straight to the Chair took care of it quickly, though the PM
>> procedure gives a good means to veto any Chair inaction.  Some may say not
>> quick enough.  For me, I personally didn't see it until I was off work that
>> day.  It was quicker than trying to contact a majority of the LNC and
>> getting word to the Secretary.  But if the LNC ever had a Chair make a bad
>> decision or be unavailable, that is certainly a good failsafe.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:18 AM, David Demarest <
>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Alicia and Daniel, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments
>>> on our exploratory committee scope, subject matter and prerogatives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First a comment on the offending Satanic Temple meme that I finally
>>> viewed for the first time last night. Coupled with the second-hand
>>> information that the Satanic Temple uses their “belief system” as a
>>> satirical tax dodge, and ignoring for a moment the obvious Holy week timing
>>> faux pas, I am trying to figure out what is so philosophically offensive
>>> about the meme. Is it because it infers the belief of some Libertarians
>>> that we own our own bodies (property rights) as opposed to God owning our
>>> bodies? Help me understand in a non-hysterical, non-hand-wringing way from
>>> a logical factual perspective, where the philosophical beef is in this
>>> hubbub. Obviously, the religious belief systems of some, even if admittedly
>>> in this case a satirical tax dodge, may be offensive to a few. So What? Is
>>> the real problem not the philosophical dogma questions but our undeniable
>>> dysfunctional personal and institutional Libertarian Party messaging
>>> strategies?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These religious dogma questions notwithstanding, I would agree with
>>> Daniel, Alicia and many other LNC members and Libertarians that the bigger
>>> issue is why the religious freedom meme series was there in the first place
>>> and for what purpose in light of our top priorities of creating a winning
>>> messaging strategy, getting Libertarians elected and putting the statists
>>> out of business. Religious freedom is obviously an important part of the
>>> Libertarianism philosophical foundation and a timely issue to core
>>> Libertarians who understand the importance despite our dysfunctional
>>> internal and external institutional messaging strategies. But how far down
>>> the list of priorities is the religious freedom issue to non-Libertarians
>>> that we want to connect with?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First, the timely positive outcome of this hubbub is that we are moving
>>> toward better scope control and accountability of our various outreach
>>> messaging outlets. We can further turn this unfortunate incident into a
>>> long-overdue opportunity to clean up our incoherent messaging strategies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The bottom line from my perspective is that religious freedom
>>> initiatives are better handled in private discussions with core
>>> Libertarians. Furthermore, the broader audience that we are trying to
>>> connect with to achieve our long-term goal of freedom for all would
>>> probably put the religious freedom issue well below the immediate concerns
>>> that define where they are at in their personal lives and family
>>> circumstances. To connect with the broader audience, we need to get off our
>>> soapboxes and reach out with targeted, tested leading questions that
>>> connect first at the emotional level with those who do not yet share our
>>> Libertarian values and goals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Once we figure out, for example, that African-American women between the
>>> ages of 30 and 50 are primarily concerned about their sons not being
>>> murdered (*targeting*) and we determine what leading questions will
>>> connect with them (*testing*), we can work on our messaging *techniques*
>>> to leverage their immediate emotional concerns, plant seeds of doubt in
>>> their statist solutions and open the door for them to ask us for more
>>> information about how Libertarians would go about surmounting the immediate
>>> obstacles faced by their segment of society. Let’s explore the art of
>>> “winning hearts and minds, not arguments” as a much more effective
>>> messaging strategy to accomplish our end goal of freedom, nothing more,
>>> nothing less.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I look forward to working with all of you to turn this obvious outreach
>>> misstep into a tremendous opportunity and positive turning point for the
>>> Libertarian Party as we build a winning messaging strategy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>
>>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>>>
>>> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>>>
>>> Cell:      402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>>
>>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
>>> Of *Daniel Hayes
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2017 5:11 AM
>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just speaking for myself,  I think that as part of the process there may
>>> come some recommendations out of the newly formed committee regarding
>>> content in the rather broad sense, but that remains to be seen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In this series, "FreeToBelieve", people that start to analyze it may
>>> notice a disproportionate representation on a per capita basis.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You have 2 memes for an organization that has less than .01% of the
>>> population of the United States involved with it. You have zero posts that
>>> clearly represent the organization that 70% of the population is affiliated
>>> with.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  I just can't help but think that that looks like it favors one over the
>>> other.  The fact that the ONLY one that had more than one meme presented
>>> was the one that represents that one mentioning the Satanic Temple could
>>> seem like the LP favors that ideology over the others.  That's a problem.
>>> There still exists the problem that there were belief systems that were not
>>> represented here in the series.
>>>
>>> I still think the right thing to do is to remove the whole thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>
>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 4:23 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are certainly process problems, but I'll comment on the content as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> I don't understand what the #FreeToBelieve series, at least the way it
>>> has been approached, is supposed to accomplish.
>>>
>>> The value of freedom of religion is not about what various religions
>>> have in common, but in how they are DIFFERENT.  The value is that two
>>> people can have polar opposite religious beliefs but still live together in
>>> a free country.  If I believe it's a sin to wear the color red, and you
>>> believe it's a sin to not wear the color red, guess what?  We both can live
>>> side by side in a libertarian society.  I'll wear blue, and you'll wear
>>> red, and neither of us imprisons the other over it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's one thing if we make a graphic symbolizing that people with widely
>>> varying religious beliefs are part of the LP...though perhaps we should
>>> avoid turning their religious symbols upside down in the graphic...that
>>> cover pic is gone now.
>>>
>>> This series has started quoting religious texts, however, and posting
>>> them to make some kind of a political statement.  Religion and politics
>>> don't mix.  We're playing with fire, and it's not surprising that we got
>>> burned.  Quote something out of context, and your target audience is
>>> offended that you're twisting context to try to tell them their God wants
>>> them to be Libertarian.  The word "freedom" in a religious text may not
>>> mean freedom like the LP talks about...it may at times mean freedom from a
>>> previous oppressor...or freedom from consequences of sin...  What if it's a
>>> figurative passage, or a parable, or someone's dream sequence, and we just
>>> yank it out of place to use it for our agenda?
>>>
>>> Religion is a set of standards that you impose on yourself voluntarily.
>>> Politics is about a set of standards that you are willing to use the force
>>> of government to impose on others.  (For the anarchists in the LP, that's a
>>> null set.)
>>>
>>> Sometimes there are overlapping areas of agreement between your religion
>>> and your politics, but those conclusions are arrived at for COMPLETELY
>>> DIFFERENT REASONS.  Maybe your religion teaches "Thou shall not commit
>>> murder" because God said so, and there's eternal punishment to consider.
>>> Libertarians say murder is unacceptable because it is the ultimate
>>> initiation of force which permanently deprives the victim of all of their
>>> rights.  Completely different reasons for the same conclusion.
>>>
>>> When we start quoting religious texts as some sort of support for our
>>> political views, what is that supposed to mean???
>>>
>>> Sure, there are some religions that call for theocracies in which the
>>> religious and political standards are identical, but we're not advocating
>>> for that, right?  So why are we quoting religious texts at all?
>>>
>>> There are a very large number of quotes from the same religious texts
>>> that we would not post.  We're not going to post, "Remember the Sabbath to
>>> keep it holy", are we?  (Using Ten Commandment examples just because so
>>> many are at least familiar with them.)  They may be a fine way for a person
>>> to choose to live for themselves, but to enforce that standard on others
>>> deprives them of the freedom to have a different religious view.  Good for
>>> religion.  Not so much for libertarian politics.
>>>
>>> Why even go there?  It's completely unnecessary to wander into such
>>> dangerous territory, and religion is not the basis for our politics.
>>>
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to request LNC oversight on the Satanic Temple posting as part
>>> of the #FreeToBelieve series. I don't want to see our volunteers raked over
>>> the coals for issues related to the LNC or APRC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is a Satanic Temple Posting:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Fine on any day of the year
>>>
>>> 2. Never ok
>>>
>>> 3. Generally ok, but not during a religious holiday of a conflicting
>>> religion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If future posts go up, I'd like it to be very clear on what the LNC
>>> views are, so that volunteers are not blamed for our decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My view: I don't think that this is a battle worth picking. You can
>>> already be as Satanic as you want in America, so we're not gaining
>>> anything. I'd much rather focus on repealing laws and taxes that exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I have no opposition to the Satanic Temple. As part of an
>>> overall study of religion, I have read sections of various "Satanic" books,
>>> and written in non-political areas on mythology parallels between
>>> Prometheus in Greek Mythology and Lucifer in the Judaeo-Christian
>>> tradition. Realistically, I'll probably look into the religious legal
>>> protections they have, based on the comments by the chair, to see how
>>> others can do the same. I'd love to see an America in which every single
>>> house and apartment building is legally seen as a religious location that
>>> pays no property taxes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Arvin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>
>>> www.VoteVohra.com
>>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>> (301) 320-3634
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> *We defend your rights*
>> *And oppose the use of force*
>> *Taxation is theft*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170420/8bf75093/attachment-0002.html>