[Lnc-business] Request for co-sponsors for motion to support campaign of Joe Buchman

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Joe did very well in the debate - he only had the questions ahead of time
for a few hours while the old party candidates had them for a few weeks.
He is now working hard to get in the next major debate.  This is a
candidate doing a real campaign... looking for one more co-sponsor.
-Caryn Ann

http://kutv.com/news/local/3rd-district-candidates-try-to-break-out-of-the-pack-at-debate-in-provo

==But Curtis came with a target on his back. When he told the crowd the
federal government's proper role included overseeing currency, Buchman
pounced.

"Mr. Mayor, I apologize but I get to correct you," he said. "As someone who
earned a PhD and an MBA in finance, the Federal Reserve is a private
bank."==



On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:30 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Regarding Dr. Buchman’s alleged “I can’t win” comment, Larry Sharpe has
> pointed out that despite the admittedly formidable odds against Larry
> winning the 2018 New York Governor’s race, it will be worth it not only to
> lay a foundation for the future but also, and just as important, to provide
> considerable credibility and word-of-mouth publicity impact to down-ticket
> races.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> LSLA Vice-Chair
>
> LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Ken Moellman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:33 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Request for co-sponsors for motion to
> support campaign of Joe Buchman
>
>
>
> I cannot co-sponsor because I'm an alternate.  However, I have had several
> conversations and I want to chime back in and revise my statements from my
> initial email.
>
>
>
> I do not know Dr. Buchman personally, and nothing I said before was meant
> to be personal.  As a former campaign manager, anything that sounds like "I
> can't win" makes me want to set the room on fire. I'm a bit sensitive on
> that matter.
>
>
>
> Since that time, I have learned more information.
>
>
>
> The core issue is the use of the funds.  If the funds are being used to
> increase the ability of the campaign to do long-term outreach (supplies
> promoting the LP, building local parties, etc.), I could be convinced to
> support such a measure.  By contrast, if the funds are being used to
> purchase supplies like yard signs or other "temporary" campaign-related
> costs, I'd definitely be against it.
>
>
>
> I'm just an alternate, so my vote rarely counts.  But after obtaining more
> information and further thought on the matter, I felt it necessary to
> append my previous comments with these.
>
>
>
> ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joe is also a friend of mine, and yes, he is "okay" with it, meaning no
> ill feelings as he is a long-term and dedicated member of the Party who
> understands that this is business, he certainly urged me to ask, and has
> been asking me for updates-- so it would mean a great to him and his
> campaign.  This is the only Federal race going on right now - and he just
> scored a victory getting into a previously denied debate.  I have explained
> the realities of the situation with having no set standards yet and he
> understands -- but he certainly did ask me to pursue this.  And members
> have asked me about it.
>
>
>
> As to funding ballot access, though I respect my predecessor Norm
> immensely - he and I are of different minds when it comes to ballot access
> funding - he would routinely vote no.  I have always voted yes.  There are
> many reasons for that but one issue that arises is that Region 1 gets short
> shrift in that - or it can **appear** so.  I am fully on board with the
> idea that nationwide ballot access benefits everyone, but it is certainly
> true that these funds do not go to Region 1 - with the highest numerical
> amounts of affiliates (9 states).  Utah is Region 1 and helping with a
> Region 1 campaign helps to balance this out and thus far, I have had the
> full support of my regional chairs when supporting ballot access funding
> because I press the case that region 1 is getting benefits from pushing
> national memberships and in their national membership.
>
>
>
> I also urge other members to give a contribution.  I will be doing so when
> I see how this month's finances go.
>
>
>
> I thank David and Whitney for co-sponsoring.  *I ask for one more.*
>
>
>
> --Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:13 PM, William Redpath <wredpath2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Joe Buchman is a multi-decade friend of mine.  I thank him very much for
> running--he jumped in at the last minute when another candidate backed
> out--and wish him the best in his Campaign.  I have personally contributed
> $201 to Joe Buchman's Campaign.  I urge other members of the LNC to do so,
> as well.  However, I am opposed to the LNC contributing to his Campaign.  I
> have discussed this with Joe, and he is OK with no LNC funding of his
> Campaign.  I wish we did, but the LNC currently does not have the resources
> to be contributing to many, if any, candidates, particularly when we have
> other needs, including ballot access in Tennessee and Alabama.  And, we
> have Ohio to finish, and that is a big job.
>
>
>
> I ask people not to co-sponsor this motion and, should it become a motion,
> to vote "No."
>
>
>
> Bill Redpath
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> On Tue, 7/11/17, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> <https://mg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/b/compose?to=carynannharlos@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Request for co-sponsors for motion to support
> campaign of Joe Buchman
>
> To: "Libertarian National Committee list" <lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> <https://mg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/b/compose?to=lnc-business@hq.lp.org>>
>
> Cc: "Joseph Buchman" <drbuchman at gmail.com
> <https://mg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/b/compose?to=drbuchman@gmail.com>>
>
> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017, 1:31 PM
>
>
>
> Joe got in
>
> the debates - this is getting momentum.  I am once again
>
> asking for the needed co-sponsors.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:08 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I will co-sponsor.
>
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2017 12:32 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Joe got in the debates - this is getting momentum.  I am once again asking
> for the needed co-sponsors.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> I am sure you are already on it but would this warrant a letter from
> Oliver?  It sounds like it may.  Only including two people from the old
> establishment parties in the debate, for the sake of time as the criteria I
> have seen for the inclusion, doesn't seem unbiased to me.  AFP is a
> non-profit as I recall. That might put AFP in an even more precarious
> position than the television station in Montana.
>
>
>
> As this is regarding potential legal action, I don't expect much of a
> response here on this public list.  I am certain the letters,
> correspondence, filings and other actions, if appropriate, will be put into
> action by those with the letters J.D. behind their name.
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> LNC At Large Member
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2017, at 1:31 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dr. Buchman sent this to me this morning to provide an answer to Ken's
> inquiry and to give information and a request about the debates he has been
> excluded from.  It did not make it to my inbox however and he re-sent to me
> after speaking on the phone this evening and since that time he has been
> officially denied debate access (as per the response I posted in another
> LNC business thread).  But please take this information into consideration
> in this request.
>
>
>
> I know that we want to develop a candidate assistance procedure.  And I
> understand that is on the agenda for August. But I ask please do not let
> that get in the way of assisting a candidate now.  It is not the fault of
> the candidates that we don't yet have such a procedure and this is in the
> only Federal race now - great opportunity to get attention for a committed
> Libertarian candidate.  Please consider this request..... and in member
> relations purpose, it does not help member confidence when we are not
> assisting when we can in a race that has the sole stage right now.
>
>
>
> >>>Why won't we assist with the campaign of this candidate in the Federal
> race?
>
>
>
> >>>Because we don't have criteria for assistance.
>
>
>
> >>>Why don't you have criteria?
>
>
>
> >>>Because we haven't done it yet.
>
>
>
> >>>So candidates suffer from LNC lack of establishment of protocol?
>
>
>
> The Mark Wicks donation invigorated that race and our members.  This could
> do likewise.  Please co-sponsor my request.
>
>
>
> The below is from Dr. Buchman:
>
>
>
> ===========
>
>
>
> I am asking for help from those who have connections with Americans for
> Prosperity in my request to be included in their Third District candidate
> debates.  Please see the email I sent to them copied below and help if you
> can.
>
>
>
> As I said in the KSL interview, the first step toward winning is getting
> into these debates.  I see getting into the debates as where the focus
> should be, just as a mountain climber focuses on the next step, or Governor
> Johnson focuses on the next curve in his mountain road.  To focus on
> "winning the race" rather than those immediate intermediate goals is not a
> winning strategy; it's delusional.   I did not say, and have never said,
>  "I am not going to win."  What I said was: "I am not running to win . . .
> primarily I am running, first, to get into the debates."   I also said:
> "The chances of a Libertarian winning the Third District in Utah are not
> impossible; I’m swinging; I’m going to go for it; I’m giving it everything
> I have. "
>
>
>
> I sure wish saying that had made every KSL and LNC listener "happy."
>
>
>
> I'll leave it to others to discern if my interview with Doug Wright (has
> invited me back again) is fairly characterized as a "concession speech."
>
>
>
> If that has left you off-put for listening to the entire interview, I'd
> ask you  read the following for the full context and  reconsider:
>
>
>
> WRIGHT: This gentleman has some KSL connections that we’ll talk about some
> other time, but I want to really get into the motivation, what caused you
> to want to get into this race; you’ve got a PhD, you’re running as a
> Libertarian, so let’s just set the stage. Give us a little background on
> you and why you are in this race.
>
>
>
> BUCHMAN: You know Doug, when I walked into your waiting room, I see there
> in the lobby, huge letters on the wall, “A Light of Truth in the World.”
> The truth that I run on is the foundation of Libertarian politics which is
> the fundamental principle in our philosophy that drives our politics, our
> ethics, our morality and those other fields of philosophy of which politics
> is one, is pretty simple, that is that no human being should have the right
> to initiate force, violence against others, to initiate force. And then the
> second core principle is that you either own your physical body, it’s yours
> to do with as you see fit, or you’re part slave; you’re owned by someone
> else. So we take the principles of non-initiation of aggression and
> self-ownership and we apply them to politics.
>
>
>
> Like you said, I am a college professor, that’s where I am coming from.  I
> am not running to win, the chances of a Libertarian winning the Third
> District in Utah are not impossible; I’m swinging; I’m going to go for it;
> I’m giving it everything I have . . .
>
>
>
> WRIGHT: right . . .
>
>
>
> BUCHMAN: . . . if I can get Rosie O’ Donnell to retweet something, who
> knows . . .
>
>
>
> WRIGHT: It worked for Dr. Allen.
>
>
>
> BUCHMAN: . . . or Drew Carey, or Penn & Teller or some other Libertarians
> who we are reaching out to, who knows? Anything is possible; but primarily
> I am running, first of all, to get into the debates. We need a Libertarian
> voice in the debates.
>
>
>
>
>
> My email to Americans for Prosperity:
>
>
>
> From: Joseph Buchman <drbuchman at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 3:45 PM
> Subject: Third District Candidate debate
> To: infout at afphq.org
>
> I am writing as the Libertarian Party of Utah's candidate for the Third
> District to request inclusion in the debates sponsored by Americans For
> Prosperity.
>
>
>
> See, for example, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=
> 10154532862572120&set=gm.1744266952269118&type=3&theater
>
>
>
> I am on the ballot as a General Election candidate for this office, see:
>
>
>
> https://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/2017-candidate-filings
>
>
>
> In the absence of an invitation to participate in your debates, may I
> inquire of the standards/process for your selection of candidates?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your attention to this request,
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> These debates were announced on Friday; the first debate is to be held
> tomorrow (Tuesday evening).  I'll be there either in the audience or on
> the stage. See:
>
>
>
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/5485360-155/two-debates-set-
> for-three-republican
>
>
>
> And while they are now being repurposed as for the "Republican primary
> candidates only" please note the portion of the article which indicates the
> Democrat was invited.
>
>
>
> "Democrat Kathie Allen — who's raised nearly $700,000 in donations — did
> not respond to an invitation to join the event, Everton said."
>
>
>
> Evelyn Everton is the Utah State Director for Americans for Prosperity.
>
>
>
> Again any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> I hope you'll listen to the entire KSL interview and form your own opinion
> of it.  I'm sure I could have done better and continue to seek your
> constructive feedback as well as help in having Americans for Prosperity
> include the Libertarian in their debates.
>
>
>
> Thanks again for your consideration,
>
>
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________
> Joseph G. Buchman, PhD
>
> 584 Hillside Circle
>
> Alpine UT 84004
>
> +++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Very good points Starchild and both views are represented in our
> membership.
>
>
>
> I certainly hope we don't divisively "take sides" on that.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:07 AM Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ken,
>
>
>
> You're certainly not the first Libertarian to express a disappointed
> emotional reaction to a candidate's realistic appraisal of his or her
> chances, but to you and any other Libertarian who has felt this way, I say
> take heart! One can lose in conventional terms and still win in libertarian
> terms. A *conventional* win means the warm body you support occupying the
> sought-after office. A *libertarian* win, however, means advancing the
> cause of freedom! Such wins can happen in any number of ways – building
> momentum for a future run, exposing more people to libertarian ideas,
> building the party, etc. Of course the cause of freedom is *usually* more
> likely to be advanced by a Libertarian occupying the sought-after office
> than by not occupying it – but it isn't the be-all, end-all it's too often
> made out to be. In some ways, the real fight begins *after* an election
> is won. If an elected Libertarian isn't mentally prepared to stick to his
> or her libertarian principles and positions, or doesn't have solidly
> libertarian principles or positions to begin with, the real, post-election
> fight for what s/he will do in office is as good as lost. Amid the statist
> culture and pressures in which s/he will be immersed, such an elected
> Libertarian will have little chance of surviving with an agenda to advance
> the cause of freedom intact.
>
>
>
> *Predicting* an election loss also isn't the same thing as *conceding*.
> When a candidate *concedes* a race, s/he is saying "the campaign is over,
> my opponent won". Clearly Joe Buchman is saying no such thing! From
> appearances, he is running and will continue to run a vigorous campaign and
> seek as much exposure for our ideas and as many votes as possible. He is
> running to win in libertarian terms. But is it wise to predict a loss at
> the ballot box? While miracles occasionally do happen and I've suggested
> candidates leave the perceptions door open by not entirely ruling out the
> possibility of getting elected, I would much rather see a Libertarian
> fighting a long-shot campaign – and this is obviously a long-shot campaign;
> no Libertarian has come close to being elected to Congress – say flat-out
> that s/he won't win, than to flat-out say that s/he will. Any candidate
> facing those kind of odds who predicts electoral victory is either
> deceiving him/herself, or attempting to deceive others. The former shows a
> poor grasp of reality, while the latter shows a lack of integrity. Neither
> reflects well on the candidate! Joe, by contrast, showed his good character
> by giving an honest and realistic assessment of his chances. For every
> person out there who thinks, 'I want to vote for someone who tells me
> s/he's going to win', I believe there's another person out there thinking,
> 'I want to vote for someone who has integrity and tells the truth'. To
> which type of voter mentality should we, as the Party of Principle, be
> trying to appeal?
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>
>
>                                      ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
>                           RealReform at earthlink.net
>
>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>
>                                    @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Ken Moellman wrote:
>
>
>
> I found out about this campaign yesterday (now, 2 days ago) and the
> referenced KSL interview almost immediately starts with the candidate
> saying "I'm not going to win."  It made me sad. More importantly, I can't
> agree to give money to someone who has already conceded the race.  I mean,
> what is the money going to be used for?  Losing better?
>
>
>
> By contrast, from what I can see, candidates like Laura Ebke and at least
> one of the recent converts in NH are gearing up re-election campaigns with
> the intent to win. They certainly haven't publicly conceded, anyway.  There
> are lots of candidates throughout the country gearing up for 2018 races. 4
> L converts and many other candidates looking to run winnable races.
>
>
>
> If this body decides to support candidates, I'd really rather see this
> body support candidates that are running to win.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I received the below request from Dr. Joe Buchman (Utah)
> and have been speaking with him about this for the past few weeks.  I would
> like us to consider assisting him to our maximum allowed of 5K.
>
>
>
> ========
>
>
>
> To the members of the LNC:
>
>
>
> The resignation of Representative Chaffetz nine days ago from the Third
> District of Utah has created a Special Election to be held 7 November 2017
> .
>
>
>
> Joe Buchman is the Libertarian Candidate for that seat and following a
> special election convention by the Libertarian Party of Utah is on the
> ballot for November 7th.   There is a Democratic opponent.  Three
> Republicans will face each other in a primary next month.
>
>
> See: https://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/2017-candidate-filings
>
>
>
> This is, we believe, the only remaining contest for federal office in 2017
> with a Libertarian candidate.
>
>
>
> To date Dr. Buchman has invested $1,000.00 of his personal funds in the
> campaign and has raised approximately $250.00 from other donors, with
> promises for about $500 in process.
>
>
>
> Joe has just been scheduled as the sole guest for the first hour of Coast
> to Coast AM, a national networked late-night radio talk show with an
> estimated *2.5 million listeners*, for *Saturday** evening, July 29th,
> 10:05PM to 11:00PM Pacific time*.  Past show hosts Art Bell and Rollye
> James were self-identified Libertarians, and past guests have included
> Judge Jim Gray, Michael Badnarik, Aaron Russo, Harry Browne, Andre Marrou
> and Dr. Buchman himself (in 2008, when he last ran for the US Congress).
>
>
> See: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/search/?query=libertarian
>
>
>
> Joe will be discussing his campaign for the US Congress, his platform as
> an expression of the NAP and Self-Ownership paradigms, will be directing
> listeners to his website and will be requesting donations.  The Coast to
> Coast website will also provide a link to his campaign site -
> www.GotoL.vote
>
>
>
> This is a request for national party funding for this singularly important
> Special Election campaign.
>
>
>
> The resignation of Representative Chaffetz has already generated
> significant national media attention, and this race is likely to continue
> to generate national media coverage as the replacement of Congressman
> Chaffetz will reflect, to some degree, a measure of voter confidence in the
> Trump administration.
>
>
>
> The Libertarian Party nationally will benefit from this election, the last
> of 2017 to include a Libertarian candidate for federal office.
>
>
>
> If a funding agreement can be reached prior to the show, Dr. Buchman would
> then appeal to Coast to Coast listeners with a promise that any donations
> received during the show will be matched dollar-for-dollar.  The show will
> be replayed and will also be available as a download from the network
> website.
>
>
>
> Joe has been interviewed by three local papers (the Salt Lake Tribune,
> Deseret News and City Weekly) and by KSL Radio's Doug Wright.
>
>
>
> That 9 minute radio interview can be found at:
>
>
>
> https://www.ksl.com/?nid=1388&a=11898
>
>
>
> Bottom line: Joe is experienced with media interviews, had a prior career
> in radio (including working with Bill Redpath at WTTS radio in the 1970s),
> is passionate about both Libertarian political pragmatism and philosophy, *and
> is currently scheduled for one of the most visible media appearances by any
> Libertarian Candidate this month* (and perhaps for the remainder of this
> year).
>
>
>
> This special election creates something of a special case for funding; an
> amount equivalent to that provided to the recent candidate in Montana would
> seem equitable.
>
>
>
> With gratitude for your consideration of this request,
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> PS If you do choose to listen to the KSL interview and/or to review the
> website and links to the print interviews there; ALL feedback, suggestions
> for improvement are also welcomed.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170713/ef17911f/attachment-0002.html>