[Lnc-business] Fwd: Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Fri Apr 21 09:55:52 EDT 2017
I lost a fantastic Colorado volunteer because we deleted it.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:55 AM Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
> I will chime in only to note this: The petitioners left in Ohio apparently
> ran into a couple of people who refused to sign the petition who cited the
> "Satanic post" on Facebook as the reason.
>
> ken
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:45 AM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
>> Caryn Ann, I agree with all your points. I support a bold platform that
>> pushes the envelope of our rational search for the truth and a set of
>> bylaws that consistently reflects the principles embedded in our platform.
>> I also believe in communicating with others in a way that respects their
>> innate intelligence and ability to act in their rational self-interest. I
>> am constantly amazed at the capabilities and inclination of the “average”
>> person to assimilate sophisticated Libertarian concepts if they are given
>> the respect of asking them leading questions that connect with where they
>> are at in the competition of life. Governments have a vested interest in
>> not trusting the rest of us to reason things out and make decisions for
>> ourselves. Their authoritarian motive is blatantly obvious. I have a vested
>> interest in trusting everyone to rise to the challenge of their
>> intellectual capabilities and decide what is best for themselves and those
>> they value. My motive is likewise blatantly obvious – freedom, nothing
>> more, nothing less, for me and all of those around the world that I value
>> for their innate willingness to refrain from the initiation of force.
>>
>>
>>
>> We Libertarians are far more capable of effective communication that just
>> hitting folks over the head with our ideas and relying on osmosis for our
>> ideas to percolate through society as they surely will in the long run.
>> Unfortunately, we may not have the luxury of waiting for the long-run
>> osmosis paradigm to succeed. Our current ticking-time-bomb economic model
>> is not sustainable and is accelerating in the wrong direction. I have no
>> intention of waiting to rebuild from the ashes. I believe that an ounce of
>> messaging strategy prevention is worth a ton of cure.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a choice. We can rest on the laurels of our well-thought-out
>> principles and bylaws and rely solely on self-righteously pontificating the
>> truth of our principles from our ivory towers. There is time and place for
>> that approach. However, I too have far too long relied solely on that
>> approach with limited success. Going forward I choose to take a more
>> proactive approach to messaging. I believe that effective communication
>> with others that do not yet share our principles starts by reaching out at
>> an emotional level that connects with where they are at now to ask leading
>> questions and then listen sympathetically. I believe that accelerating the
>> spread of our ideas through effective messaging strategies is entirely
>> consistent with our principles.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can count on me to put my messaging strategies where my mouth is
>> regardless of whether it is popular with any segment of the Libertarian
>> Party. Principles and truth, including messaging strategy truth, come
>> before party.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 *Caryn Ann Harlos
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:51 PM
>> *To:* Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Starchild. That means a great deal to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Caryn Ann
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Beautifully said, Caryn Ann! I concur 100%. From noting where Alicia got
>> it right, to the larger point that we are about standing for *freedom*,
>> not just popular freedoms, you totally nailed it. If we had "best of"
>> awards for posts to this list, I would nominate this one in a heartbeat!
>>
>>
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>>
>> ((( starchild )))
>>
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> (415) 625-FREE
>>
>> @StarchildSF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos 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*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170421/e6c5ac5b/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list