[Lnc-business] Fwd: Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
Larry Sharpe
lsharpe at neo-sage.com
Fri Apr 21 15:00:13 EDT 2017
Hi All,
Nobody said this, I just want to be sure the committee heard my opinion
here.
However our messaging strategy or process is adjusted, I hope we can
encourage diversity while maintaining the goal. I like an idea similar to
Arvin's where we are focused on a specific end game. In his case, always
shrinking government. The style, however, I think should be less
constrained.
As Arvin heard me preach in Harrisburg, we need bomb throwers and eggshell
walkers. That day, Arvin talked about Ayn Rand and starting with taxation
is theft. And moments later I talked about culture and emotion and waiting
before addressing logic. Both are correct. People are moved by different
messages at different times in their lives.
Martin Luther King didn't advance the Civil Rights movement on his own. He
needed Malcolm X too (and many others). While George Washington fought on
the battlefield, Benjamin Franklin talked diplomacy in France. We needed
both to win the revolution.
To Caryn Ann's point, should we say "abolish"? Absolutely yes. Should we
ONLY say "abolish"? Absolutely no.
Just my two cents.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
*Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170421/59db5fbf/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170421/59db5fbf/attachment-0002.png>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list