December 2016 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

A short reminder regarding decorum
by Nicholas Sarwark 29 Oct '19

29 Oct '19

Dear All, I expect that members of the Libertarian National Committee will disagree with each other with respect. I expect that after the Libertarian National Committee comes to a decision on an issue, be it the purchase of an office or the choice to make a goal a certain number of candidates running for public office, that every member of the committee will either support the goal or at least stop trying to publicly fight against it after they've lost. I expect that every member of the Libertarian National Committee will be polite and respectful to the rest of the members and to the national office staff. If anyone is unwilling or unable to meet these expectations, I will happily accept your resignation from the Libertarian National Committee and wish you the best of luck in whatever future endeavors you choose. Yours in liberty, Nicholas J. Sarwark Chair, Libertarian National Committee

5 6

Fwd: Proposal for Libertarian Party (from Chairman of Mississippi)
by Arvin Vohra 27 Aug '17

27 Aug '17

Hi all, please consider the following proposal from Aaron Barksdale: Mr. Vohra; Aaron Barksdale, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, here wanting to offer a proposal that is win-win for the LP and myself. I am writing you using a personal e-mail because this is not connected to the MSLP. In case you are not aware, the Secretary of the MSLP and I wrote a book called *Libertarianism in a Nutshell*. Please review the proposal enclosed and contact me if you have any questions or counter offers or to proceed with the proposal. Thank you, Aaron Barksdale cell: (228)238-7844 -- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra(a)gmail.com (301) 320-3634

6 15

November Financial Reports
by Tim Hagan 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } The November End-of-Month financial reports are attached. Tim HaganSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad -- _filtered {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered {panose-1:3 8 4 2 3 2 5 11 4 4;} p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}span.EmailStyle17 {font-family:Verdana;color:navy;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;} _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}div.Section1 {}

2 1

Re: [Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do about them
by David Demarest 31 Dec '16

31 Dec '16

Roland, I love your concluding comment: "My standard comment in North Dakota of what I would do if Libertarians took over our state government, is that I would have to immediately start a new anti-Libertarian Party to get the corrupt bastards kicked out!" Wouldn't your pithy comment be even more applicable at the federal level and hence a powerful argument for decentralization? Bigger centralized government (or political party) inevitably results in an exponentially larger scale of corruption. :) Thoughts? ~David Pratt Demarest -----Original Message----- From: riemers(a)juno.com [mailto:riemers@juno.com] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 3:37 PM To: dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do about them We know a weak central organization is not going to do it, as we seen what happened to the US under the Articles of Confederation. And our current party system is not working that well either. We have a somewhat weak national organization and we have strong and weak states, and we have some states at war against either themselves or the national party. I think - as pointed out - we need a well run national program to tie us all together as we are really nothing if we were just broken down into local state parties, and national should facilitate strong state parties. But it is also important that state parties support the national party. I think national needs to supply workable tools for the states to be an effective organization. Be it internet support, to the very basic of having a boiler plate state constitution and bylaws that each state can build on to meet its needs. (Currently a lot of state constitutions and bylaws appear to be nothing but a joke, that no one really knows and no one really follows, and it appears some states just blindly adopted the wordings from a neighboring state with no regard to state needs or requirements). So, national, hand out the effective tools to the state parties. And states, make membership in national a basic requirement for state membership. But mostly, we have to really stand for something, otherwise just winning elections makes us no better then the other parties. My standard comment in North Dakota of what I would do if Libertarians took over our state government, is that I would have to immediately start a new anti-Libertarian Party to get the corrupt bastards kicked out! Roland Riemers ND ____________________________________________________________ 1 Fruit That "Destroys" Diabetes (Try This Tonight) Medical Health Advisor <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5868256812f332567793est51vuc> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5868256812f332567793est51vuc

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do about them
by David Demarest 31 Dec '16

31 Dec '16

Resend with [Lnc-business] attachment. From: David Demarest [mailto:dpdemarest@centurylink.net] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 2:33 PM To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org; 'Caryn Ann Harlos' <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com>; 'Starchild' <sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net>; riemers(a)juno.com Cc: 'George Phillies' <phillies(a)4liberty.net>; 'Andy Burns' <Andy.Burns(a)lp.org>; 'Laura Ebke' <laura(a)lauraebke.com>; 'Whitney Bilyeu' <whitneycb76(a)gmail.com>; riemers(a)juno.com; david.demarest(a)firstdata.com; 'David Demarest' <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net>; david.demarest(a)firstdata.com Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do about them Starchild, like you, I agree with Roland that both bottom-up and top-down approaches can work but with the following clarifications: * The top-down approach will help achieve freedom only to the extent that it encourages and empowers the bottom-up approach * Freedom and decentralization go hand-in-hand * Caryn Ann has a valid point about the stifling effects of top-down messaging * Top-down distribution of fund-raising proceeds also suffers from the stifling effects of the top-down approach * Setting an example is much more powerful means of encouraging and empowering the bottom-up approach in contrast to top-down messaging and relying on top-down fund-raising redistribution as a cash cow * The LNC can set an example in a number of ways: - Consistently applied transparency policies - Improved messaging technique strategy that focuses on "winning hearts and minds, not arguments" and employs the "Johnny Appleseed - plant a seed" strategy of using leading questions to find common ground and plant ideas that lead to healthy discussions like this one - Think tank focused on example-setting, bottom-up empowerment including fund-raising and best practices suggestions, development of realistic but inspirational short and long-term LP achievement goals and not interferring with the Platform Committee responsibilty for LP principles subject to convention delegate approval - LNC internal fund-raising to self-fund LNC projects with only a small symbolic seed percentage passed on affiliates and affinity groups of merit * One consequence of the LNC setting an example will be the encouragement of affiliates to use the example-setting approach * I promote an LP-wide policy that all projects at all levels (national, state and local) should be primarily self-funded using their own fund-raising resources. As Starchild has previously pointed out, in this day and social media age, crowd funding is an extremely effective low-cost method of fund-raising at all levels supplemented by other more traditional fund-raising options where appropriate and feasible. Voluntary sharing of a small symbolic seed percentage of fund-raising proceeds to the next higher LP level would set a powerful and contagious example. * Ultimately, individual Libertarians are the best resource for setting an example for all levels of the LP. The inspiration of self-motivated Libertarians is contagious. A little empowerment encouragement by example-setting at higher LP levels is a powerful tool to inspire more self-motivated Libertarians. Example-setting and empowerment of self-motivated Libertarians is the future of the LP. Thoughts? ~David Pratt Demarest From: Lnc-business [ <mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Starchild Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 12:29 PM To: Caryn Ann Harlos < <mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com> carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> Cc: George Phillies < <mailto:phillies@4liberty.net> phillies(a)4liberty.net>; Libertarian National Committee list < <mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org>; Andy Burns < <mailto:Andy.Burns@lp.org> Andy.Burns(a)lp.org>; Laura Ebke < <mailto:laura@lauraebke.com> laura(a)lauraebke.com> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do about them Caryn Ann, I think your instincts in feeling discomfort for the reasons you describe are sound, but I can understand why it would take some "chewing over" to put your finger on it, because on the face of things, well, of course we want outreach materials. And to be clear, I think David is probably right that on the whole, the benefits of LNC outreach exceed the risks, even in the current system. I certainly think our money is better spent on outreach materials than on some of the things we spend it on (like catered lunches and flying staff around to meetings!) But I applaud you for thinking about the institutional risks, because that is a methodologically radical approach, and there are probably ways to reduce that risk without "muzzling outreach" or having it end up coming out like milquetoast. What would a more bottom-up, affiliate-driven approach to outreach look like? One way it might be accomplished would be to have a greater share of the overall funds taken in by the Libertarian Party going to the affiliates. Such a shift could start with an acknowledgement that it is inherently easier in some ways to get people to give money to the national LP than to the state parties, just as it is easier for a presidential candidate to attract donations than a local candidate, and compensate for this by adopting a kind of "reverse-tithing" system, so that instead of every dollar collected at the national level being budgeted at the national level (including disbursements for "affiliate support" and such), a significant percentage of those collections would automatically go to the state affiliates. Under such an approach, instead of most of the funds available for hiring staff accruing to the national level, most of the funds available for that purpose might accrue to the affiliate level. Affiliate parties could use the system of regions to pool money for purposes of hiring staff, so that a region of several states might share one or two full-time staffers*, just as the region system is currently used to pool affiliate resources for purposes of gaining representation on the LNC. With such a system in place, we would likely see state- or regional-level staffers producing more outreach material, and that material trickling upward, rather than national producing such materials and having them trickle downward. A state affiliate or a region producing a brochure could send a copy to the LNC, which could then decide whether to reproduce it and offer it for sale on the national website. In other words, it would be a system less like the Constitution, and more like the Articles of Confederation, with a relatively weak center dependent for assistance on its decentralized components, rather than vice-versa. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF *I refer here to "staff" along the lines of the current hiring system for the sake of familiarity, but I think a better approach would be to identify a list of tasks and then pay people on a task-by-task basis to complete them, i.e. more of a gig economy like Uber where a lot of people can each work a little on a flexible basis, instead of a traditional employment model where a few people have long-term sinecures. P.S. - This observation, I think, gets right to the heart of a whole bunch of related problems: "In my joyful task of reading through some historical archives and older publications, we were at times a much different Party, with a fire in the belly that I don't always see now and I fear that what may be pushed out will err on the side of milquetoast." A methodologically radical approach to this circumstance would go beyond looking merely at ideological signposts to measure where we are versus where we were (how our Platform differs from then to now, the positions and beliefs held by people in the party's leadership now versus then, etc.), and take a hard look also at deeper and more subtle causes like the nature of institutions, how they are affected by time, power, and other factors, how the party's structure, culture, etc., may have worked to undermine our r3VOLutionary spirit, and what structural and cultural changes could halt and reverse this trend, so that we will have institutional safeguards to keep us on a sustainably libertarian course beyond simply trying to ensure that we adopt good Platform amendments and elect good people. On Dec 31, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: In chewing this over, I have put my finger on where my discomfort is. The national party already puts out timely releases under its own name stamp. Any affiliate can use that to craft its own statement. If there are sheer statistics we need to get out to the states- wonderful. But national talking points are not state talking points, and if we make it uber convenient to have the national voice put out generically and just have the LP of X be able to be stamped on it, we have through convenience, co-opted the state voices. IOW these resources are on hot events are available now - and national needs to put our more of its own statements, and the states can then use them. But they are branded national, not some template that is in fact national, that is just waiting to stamp a state on them. I suppose I would not have this angst if I didn't think we lost our ideological way a bit, and some of what may be pushed is more conservative-lite than strictly libertarian. In my joyful task of reading through some historical archives and older publications, we were at times a much different Party, with a fire in the belly that I don't always see now and I fear that what may be pushed out will err on the side of milquetoast. I don't disguise my view that I think caution in a minor party is overrated and that we need to boldly and fearlessly declare what we really want - the implications of a "world set free in our lifetime" - not some more general points about a "libertarian direction" - and right now one of those methods is being used nearly exclusively. That is a philosophical debate and distinction and whatever direction we choose influences the states - and for those who's perspective isn't being followed - it will be seen an unduly influencing. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> Libertarian Party Radical Caucus On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com <mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com> > wrote: We are not by Bylaws structure a top down organization. And they "work" in entirely different ways. Starchild is entirely right and I'm not even that much of a methodological radical as he will gladly tell you - but I have seen the unintended consequences of so much in my short time with the Party. I go back to the year before I decided to run for this position and one thing really motivated me - what I saw to be national overreach into the autonomy of an affiliate. And prevention of that through even good intentioned acts will be on my mind. Equipping and training the states to do these things themselves - for their constituents - is the way to preserve our system. National talking points are not always in the affiliates' best interest. What about during national campaigns if and when candidates go off-message? Like it or not it is national's job to support them (unless the Bylaws nuclear option is exercised) but that is NOT the state's best interests each time. Two different spheres and roles here. The parallels I see here between allowing the Federal Government to do things because "it's easier, they have more resources, and it will be uniform" and these United States is putting the fear of God in me. We preach decentralization in government. We must model it. Activists and think tank types can do this outside the LNC. I believe we need to encourage more grass roots efforts and empower them than being so eager for yet another official committee that can unduly influence the messaging. C Michael Pickens teaches that in his classes and it is very eye opening. None of this absolutely opposed. It is very very very cautious. . -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> Libertarian Party Radical Caucus On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:03 AM riemers(a)juno.com <mailto:riemers@juno.com> <riemers(a)juno.com <mailto:riemers@juno.com> > wrote: Bottom up, or Top down, they both can work. What matters more is whoever is leading is motivated plus has some idea of how to make use of our political system. It is hard to get voters motivated, be they Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. That is why it is so easy for a small motivated minority representing some religious or economic cause to take over our system. It is just too dam easy to let someone else do the work while we set at home watching TV news and wring our hands what a terrible world we live in and why don't our leaders (or neighbors) do something about it. A recent example is yesterday I was reading the recent ND Supreme Court decision against a man trying to get out of "civil commitment." The Supreme Court has set up specific and tough guidelines for these civil commitments, but reading over the decision it is obvious that our state courts are completely ignoring these rules and just doing the politically correct thing. Of our 5 justices, only one dissented and pointed out this miscarriage of justice. The public and our legislators could care less. The man of course could appeal to the US Supreme Court, and could probably win, except the US Supremes only accept about 1 out of 10,000 cases, and the odds of even getting a hearing is close to none. Basically, it is near impossible to forecast if someone will repeat a criminal act. Yet we allow doctors using voodoo like theories to declare a person who did a sexual offense 20 years ago is going to do the same thing today. If psychology is really that accurate, then why not test us all and lock up those who will likely commit a crime sometime in the future? In regards to sex crimes, it has been my observation that 99.9% of us males could, or will, commit some type of sex crime sometime in our lives, but only about 1% will get caught. So lets make sure all women and children are safe and lock up all males, and the 0,1% who are truly sexual saints present positive proof of that fact so that we can eventually let them free? Not to let women off, as they commit crimes as well, but probably of a different nature then men. So lock everyone up so we can all be safe? Anyway, point is, only one justice in ND had the guts to point out this injustice. All the other good justices and lawyers and legislators and the general public are totally non-motivated to correct this error. So, what are we as Libertarians doing to actually promote freedom and liberty? How are we defending the weak from the abuses of the American majority? If we are truly motivated and doing our job, our party will grow regardless if it is top down or bottom up. Roland Riemers of ND ____________________________________________________________ Drink This Before Bed To Burn Belly Fat Overnight Celebrity Lifestyle News http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5867d69b919d569a728dst04vuc -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] The risks of centralized power and what to do about them
by Starchild 31 Dec '16

31 Dec '16

Caryn Ann, I think your instincts in feeling discomfort for the reasons you describe are sound, but I can understand why it would take some "chewing over" to put your finger on it, because on the face of things, well, of course we want outreach materials. And to be clear, I think David is probably right that on the whole, the benefits of LNC outreach exceed the risks, even in the current system. I certainly think our money is better spent on outreach materials than on some of the things we spend it on (like catered lunches and flying staff around to meetings!) But I applaud you for thinking about the institutional risks, because that is a methodologically radical approach, and there are probably ways to reduce that risk without "muzzling outreach" or having it end up coming out like milquetoast. What would a more bottom-up, affiliate-driven approach to outreach look like? One way it might be accomplished would be to have a greater share of the overall funds taken in by the Libertarian Party going to the affiliates. Such a shift could start with an acknowledgement that it is inherently easier in some ways to get people to give money to the national LP than to the state parties, just as it is easier for a presidential candidate to attract donations than a local candidate, and compensate for this by adopting a kind of "reverse-tithing" system, so that instead of every dollar collected at the national level being budgeted at the national level (including disbursements for "affiliate support" and such), a significant percentage of those collections would automatically go to the state affiliates. Under such an approach, instead of most of the funds available for hiring staff accruing to the national level, most of the funds available for that purpose might accrue to the affiliate level. Affiliate parties could use the system of regions to pool money for purposes of hiring staff, so that a region of several states might share one or two full-time staffers*, just as the region system is currently used to pool affiliate resources for purposes of gaining representation on the LNC. With such a system in place, we would likely see state- or regional-level staffers producing more outreach material, and that material trickling upward, rather than national producing such materials and having them trickle downward. A state affiliate or a region producing a brochure could send a copy to the LNC, which could then decide whether to reproduce it and offer it for sale on the national website. In other words, it would be a system less like the Constitution, and more like the Articles of Confederation, with a relatively weak center dependent for assistance on its decentralized components, rather than vice-versa. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF *I refer here to "staff" along the lines of the current hiring system for the sake of familiarity, but I think a better approach would be to identify a list of tasks and then pay people on a task-by-task basis to complete them, i.e. more of a gig economy like Uber where a lot of people can each work a little on a flexible basis, instead of a traditional employment model where a few people have long-term sinecures. P.S. – This observation, I think, gets right to the heart of a whole bunch of related problems: > "In my joyful task of reading through some historical archives and older publications, we were at times a much different Party, with a fire in the belly that I don't always see now and I fear that what may be pushed out will err on the side of milquetoast." A methodologically radical approach to this circumstance would go beyond looking merely at ideological signposts to measure where we are versus where we were (how our Platform differs from then to now, the positions and beliefs held by people in the party's leadership now versus then, etc.), and take a hard look also at deeper and more subtle causes like the nature of institutions, how they are affected by time, power, and other factors, how the party's structure, culture, etc., may have worked to undermine our r3VOLutionary spirit, and what structural and cultural changes could halt and reverse this trend, so that we will have institutional safeguards to keep us on a sustainably libertarian course beyond simply trying to ensure that we adopt good Platform amendments and elect good people. On Dec 31, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > In chewing this over, I have put my finger on where my discomfort is. The national party already puts out timely releases under its own name stamp. Any affiliate can use that to craft its own statement. If there are sheer statistics we need to get out to the states- wonderful. But national talking points are not state talking points, and if we make it uber convenient to have the national voice put out generically and just have the LP of X be able to be stamped on it, we have through convenience, co-opted the state voices. > > IOW these resources are on hot events are available now - and national needs to put our more of its own statements, and the states can then use them. But they are branded national, not some template that is in fact national, that is just waiting to stamp a state on them. > > I suppose I would not have this angst if I didn't think we lost our ideological way a bit, and some of what may be pushed is more conservative-lite than strictly libertarian. In my joyful task of reading through some historical archives and older publications, we were at times a much different Party, with a fire in the belly that I don't always see now and I fear that what may be pushed out will err on the side of milquetoast. I don't disguise my view that I think caution in a minor party is overrated and that we need to boldly and fearlessly declare what we really want - the implications of a "world set free in our lifetime" - not some more general points about a "libertarian direction" - and right now one of those methods is being used nearly exclusively. That is a philosophical debate and distinction and whatever direction we choose influences the states - and for those who's perspective isn't being followed - it will be seen an unduly influencing. > -- > In Liberty, > Caryn Ann Harlos > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: > We are not by Bylaws structure a top down organization. And they "work" in entirely different ways. > > Starchild is entirely right and I'm not even that much of a methodological radical as he will gladly tell you - but I have seen the unintended consequences of so much in my short time with the Party. > > I go back to the year before I decided to run for this position and one thing really motivated me - what I saw to be national overreach into the autonomy of an affiliate. And prevention of that through even good intentioned acts will be on my mind. > > Equipping and training the states to do these things themselves - for their constituents - is the way to preserve our system. National talking points are not always in the affiliates' best interest. What about during national campaigns if and when candidates go off-message? Like it or not it is national's job to support them (unless the Bylaws nuclear option is exercised) but that is NOT the state's best interests each time. Two different spheres and roles here. > > The parallels I see here between allowing the Federal Government to do things because "it's easier, they have more resources, and it will be uniform" and these United States is putting the fear of God in me. We preach decentralization in government. We must model it. > > Activists and think tank types can do this outside the LNC. I believe we need to encourage more grass roots efforts and empower them than being so eager for yet another official committee that can unduly influence the messaging. C Michael Pickens teaches that in his classes and it is very eye opening. > > None of this absolutely opposed. It is very very very cautious. > > . > > > -- > In Liberty, > Caryn Ann Harlos > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:03 AM riemers(a)juno.com <riemers(a)juno.com> wrote: > Bottom up, or Top down, they both can work. What matters more is whoever is leading is motivated plus has some idea of how to make use of our political system. It is hard to get voters motivated, be they Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. That is why it is so easy for a small motivated minority representing some religious or economic cause to take over our system. It is just too dam easy to let someone else do the work while we set at home watching TV news and wring our hands what a terrible world we live in and why don't our leaders (or neighbors) do something about it. > > > > A recent example is yesterday I was reading the recent ND Supreme Court decision against a man trying to get out of "civil commitment." The Supreme Court has set up specific and tough guidelines for these civil commitments, but reading over the decision it is obvious that our state courts are completely ignoring these rules and just doing the politically correct thing. Of our 5 justices, only one dissented and pointed out this miscarriage of justice. The public and our legislators could care less. The man of course could appeal to the US Supreme Court, and could probably win, except the US Supremes only accept about 1 out of 10,000 cases, and the odds of even getting a hearing is close to none. > > > > Basically, it is near impossible to forecast if someone will repeat a criminal act. Yet we allow doctors using voodoo like theories to declare a person who did a sexual offense 20 years ago is going to do the same thing today. If psychology is really that accurate, then why not test us all and lock up those who will likely commit a crime sometime in the future? In regards to sex crimes, it has been my observation that 99.9% of us males could, or will, commit some type of sex crime sometime in our lives, but only about 1% will get caught. So lets make sure all women and children are safe and lock up all males, and the 0,1% who are truly sexual saints present positive proof of that fact so that we can eventually let them free? Not to let women off, as they commit crimes as well, but probably of a different nature then men. So lock everyone up so we can all be safe? > > > > Anyway, point is, only one justice in ND had the guts to point out this injustice. All the other good justices and lawyers and legislators and the general public are totally non-motivated to correct this error. > > > > So, what are we as Libertarians doing to actually promote freedom and liberty? How are we defending the weak from the abuses of the American majority? If we are truly motivated and doing our job, our party will grow regardless if it is top down or bottom up. > > > > Roland Riemers of ND > > ____________________________________________________________ > > Drink This Before Bed To Burn Belly Fat Overnight > > Celebrity Lifestyle News > > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5867d69b919d569a728dst04vuc > > > > > -- > In Liberty, > Caryn Ann Harlos > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > > > >

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] (no subject)
by Starchild 31 Dec '16

31 Dec '16

Hi Roland, Thanks for your thoughts. In one sense it is very true that both bottom-up and top-down can "work", just as libertarians and statists running for office can both "win". But this begs the questions, "What do we mean by 'win'?" and "What do we mean by 'work'?" A win in libertarian terms means something different than a win in statist terms. For those whose aim is power and money, simply getting elected can count as a win, because once in office they have access to power and money. But for those whose aim is freedom, simply getting elected is not enough. A real "win" has been achieved only when the cause of freedom itself is advanced – winning election with an "L" next to your name does not, in and of itself, advance the cause of freedom. It only has that effect if one actually votes and acts in a libertarian manner once elected. Similarly, something may "work" in narrow terms – e.g. the fascists getting the trains to run on time, crime rates dropping under an authoritarian regime, etc. – without actually working in libertarian terms. You write that, "What matters more is whoever is leading is motivated plus has some idea of how to make use of our political system." This, imho, is far too broad and vague. Donald Trump, after all, seems to be motivated and appears to have made effective use of the political system. But I trust none of us would confuse his accomplishments with the kind that we are looking for. Then however, you write something with which I'm in strong agreement: " It is hard to get voters motivated, be they Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. That is why it is so easy for a small motivated minority representing some religious or economic cause to take over our system." Put in a slightly different way, that can be restated as follows: "It is hard to get people at the grassroots level motivated enough to do what needs to happen if they are to be sufficiently collectively empowered to keep the small minority who are motivated (typically by power and money) in check." Which in turn can be slightly restated thus: "Implementing and maintaining a bottom-up system is difficult, but unless you want a small group of more authoritarian-minded folks exercising power over others from the top down, it must be done." As you point out, top-down systems are "too damn easy", because they do not require ordinary individuals to be sufficiently empowered and engaged to maintain their rights. To use your civil commitment example – and of course you are right that such "crime prevention" practices amount to a scary expansion of government power – if enough people spoke out against incarcerating people without calling it that or adhering to due process, and demanded justice, the practice would end. But most people find it easier to just leave such matters to the government courts. Finally, you write, "If we are truly motivated and doing our job, our party will grow..." In one sense that is very true. But it begs the questions, "Who are 'we', what is our job, and what kind of growth are we talking about?" The leaders of the Demopublican parties over the years have been quite motivated, and their parties have grown, but obviously in those cases we do not consider those things to be positive developments. I would say if we the individuals in the libertarian movement are motivated enough to build and sustain a bottom-up political party despite the aforementioned difficulty of organizing and empowering people at the grassroots level, then our party will not just grow, which even a statist party can do, but rather will grow in a sustainably libertarian manner. Hope that all made some sense! Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Dec 31, 2016, at 8:01 AM, riemers(a)juno.com wrote: > Bottom up, or Top down, they both can work. What matters more is whoever is leading is motivated plus has some idea of how to make use of our political system. It is hard to get voters motivated, be they Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. That is why it is so easy for a small motivated minority representing some religious or economic cause to take over our system. It is just too dam easy to let someone else do the work while we set at home watching TV news and wring our hands what a terrible world we live in and why don't our leaders (or neighbors) do something about it. > > A recent example is yesterday I was reading the recent ND Supreme Court decision against a man trying to get out of "civil commitment." The Supreme Court has set up specific and tough guidelines for these civil commitments, but reading over the decision it is obvious that our state courts are completely ignoring these rules and just doing the politically correct thing. Of our 5 justices, only one dissented and pointed out this miscarriage of justice. The public and our legislators could care less. The man of course could appeal to the US Supreme Court, and could probably win, except the US Supremes only accept about 1 out of 10,000 cases, and the odds of even getting a hearing is close to none. > > Basically, it is near impossible to forecast if someone will repeat a criminal act. Yet we allow doctors using voodoo like theories to declare a person who did a sexual offense 20 years ago is going to do the same thing today. If psychology is really that accurate, then why not test us all and lock up those who will likely commit a crime sometime in the future? In regards to sex crimes, it has been my observation that 99.9% of us males could, or will, commit some type of sex crime sometime in our lives, but only about 1% will get caught. So lets make sure all women and children are safe and lock up all males, and the 0,1% who are truly sexual saints present positive proof of that fact so that we can eventually let them free? Not to let women off, as they commit crimes as well, but probably of a different nature then men. So lock everyone up so we can all be safe? > > Anyway, point is, only one justice in ND had the guts to point out this injustice. All the other good justices and lawyers and legislators and the general public are totally non-motivated to correct this error. > > So, what are we as Libertarians doing to actually promote freedom and liberty? How are we defending the weak from the abuses of the American majority? If we are truly motivated and doing our job, our party will grow regardless if it is top down or bottom up. > > Roland Riemers of ND

1 0

Fwd: Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member
by Starchild 31 Dec '16

31 Dec '16

Forwarding this correspondence on which many LNC members were cc'd to the LNC list for the sake of transparency. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF Begin forwarded message: > From: Starchild <sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net> > Date: December 31, 2016 7:54:08 AM PST > To: Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com>, David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net> > Cc: Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76(a)gmail.com>, Andy Burns <Andy.Burns(a)lp.org>, Nick Sarwark <Chair(a)lp.org>, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes(a)icloud.com>, David Demarest <David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com>, George Phillies <phillies(a)4liberty.net>, Larry Sharpe <lsharpe(a)neo-sage.com>, Laura Ebke <laura(a)lauraebke.com>, Sean O'Toole <sean(a)kingfieldcapital.com>, Trent Somes <tsomes3(a)gmail.com>, Vohra Vohra <vicechair(a)lp.org> > Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member > > > A good question to ask of any proposal is, "Would this change tend to make the Libertarian Party a more centralized, top-down organization run by its leaders, or a more decentralized, bottom-up organization run by its members?" > > I think a lot unintended consequences are produced by failing to consider this question and others like it when determining the methods we use to try to get things done. One way of looking at methodological radicalism is this: A methodological radical is one who carefully applies such questions, either consciously or on an intuitive level. > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee > (415) 625-FREE > @StarchildSF > > > On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: > >> I don't disagree David through "properly constraining" isn't a national strong point and it's mostly unintentional. The logo example is really a perfect one I think. >> >> No one told the affiliates they had to standardize logos yet most of us have and it certainly is not because we loved the chicken so much. It was because the national resources put into it compared to local scarcity or perceived local scarcity made it a deal that was hard to refuse. >> >> The sane thing can easily happen with talking points etc. Scarily easily. Through no one's direct intentions. >> >> No one intended to let one person effectively rebrand our image through website design and "lose" 83% data. >> >> Or another example- CO 's platform on taxation is worded world's stronger than national (though the SoP is the same). Some tax event happens and the national talking points come out. A busy chair is tempted to use something that might be different had she consulted what the state delegates passed in our own platform. >> >> We cannot underestimate the power of "but it came from national." Too much of that and state autonomy dies with a whimper. There is a reason there is an LSLA with separate mailing list outside of our control. >> >> As an aside, this would be an excellent LSLA project. >> >> But I hear your point and stated the merit right up front. But there are unintended consequences that we must always keep in mind. >> >> And the affiliates must remember - we don't really have some vast informational resources nor access to things that they don't have. We do have a few full time staffers. We can ask for volunteers to do this- but so can they. In the Information Age anyone can do this. >> >> So I am the curmudgeon. I don't have a rosy view of the butterfly effect and jealously guard any intrusion - and the unintentional ones are the worst >> because they are absolutely innocent - into the autonomy of the affiliates. >> >> National should put out timely analysis of its own view and any state can take that into consideration and then there isn't the temptation to take some behind the scenes talking point, slap a State B name on it, and through no ill will, allow one's affiliate to be a satellite. >> >> I also see APRC review being bypassed as it will be argued this isn't a public communication. >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:07 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net> wrote: >> Caryn Ann, >> >> >> >> Your excellent point is well taken. I believe that without an empowered bottom-up movement to build the farm team and get Libertarians elected at all levels, we will not achieve our goal of freedom, nothing more, nothing less. >> >> >> >> I would suggest that the explicit and documented primary objective of all national outreach efforts should be to encourage and facilitate an empowered bottom-up movement, not with top-down directives but with tools, information and responsive affiliate request fulfillment. >> >> What is the purpose of the LNC if not to provide properly constrained but effective empowerment outreach to affiliates and our critical bottom-up movement? >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> From: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 4:59 AM >> To: David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net>; Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: Andy Burns <Andy.Burns(a)lp.org>; Chair(a)lp.org; Daniel Hayes <danielehayes(a)icloud.com>; Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com>; Larry Sharpe <lsharpe(a)neo-sage.com>; Trent Somes <tsomes3(a)gmail.com>; vicechair(a)lp.org >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member >> >> >> >> And please interpret my words as cautionary notes, nothing more. >> >> >> >> I am not opposed but mission creep and inadvertent top down dependence is something to be ever-vigilant about. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 3:49 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> David, >> >> >> >> I will always be the cautionary voice. And when it comes to platform positions things get squirrely because each affiliate has their own platform. Until this year, national had no death penalty plank. CO did. >> >> >> >> I will just always be advising caution and restraint - things coming from top down often promote a top down attitude, even when not the intent. And national is at times - in the opinion of some -far less consistently libertarian than some affiliates. >> >> >> >> When I see things like Being Libertarian's piece on how national needs to take control of affiliates and that kind of thought process becoming very common, I will always be the concerned voice. >> >> >> >> That is all I am doing here. I would rather see empowered groups do this within their own states or some other model - it is so easy to slip into the idea of the master corporation giving its branding marching orders to its franchisees. >> >> >> >> This is what happened with the logo after all. Even CO succumbed. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 2:20 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> Whitney, Caryn Ann: >> >> >> >> The proposed national think tank could dovetail nicely with the project that the ASC is working on to have Andy Burns disseminate similar information mixed with best practices in a newsletter type format to help state affiliates grow and prosper. Propaganda is not the intention. The idea is not to create or “interpret” established LP principles. That is the responsibility of the Platform Committee subject to approval of convention delegates. However, that does not mean that we should muzzle national outreach to affiliates to provide state affiliates with tools and information that affiliates can pick and choose from, interpret and apply as they see fit. The proposed think tank would function as a service, not as a propaganda tool. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> ~David Pratt Demarest >> >> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) >> >> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee >> >> Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee >> >> Member, LNC Empowered Future Committee >> >> Board Member and Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus >> >> Cell: 402-981-6469 >> >> Home: 402-493-0873 >> >> Office: 402-222-7207 >> >> >> >> From: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 11:33 PM >> To: Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: David Demarest <dpdemarest(a)centurylink.net>; Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member >> >> >> >> BTW, via the State Chairs list would be a natural communication channel >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I understand and see the value. But the influence of national steering the discussion inordinately is a caution. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:43 PM Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Not the intent of this at all... >> >> >> >> There would be NO suggestion that the affiliates use the information at all. It would just be made available to them...via e-mail, I suppose. They can choose to use it for that week's messaging or not. It is meant to be EDUCATIONAL/INFORMATIVE, solely. >> >> >> >> This is meant for those affiliates who want it, and want to use it...no requirements. An effort to give them tools, and empower them to be vocal and engage with the public as Libetarians. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This is an excellent suggestion but I have one concern. Many members seem to want the LNC to be the mothership and don't have a good understanding of the relationship between affiliates and the National Party. Many affiliates, including CO, have arguably "stronger" platforms than the National Party does and I'm concerned that this places pressure on the affiliates to follow "the Party line." >> >> >> >> However the point about many state parties not having the knowledge resources is well-taken. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:57 PM Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The intent was to have clear, concise, LP position statements sent strictly to state affiliates regarding issues of the day....within 3 days of the incident/announcement/action/appointment in question. >> >> >> >> This would not be press releases, calls to action, etc...this would be simple statements on the matter-at-hand, with basic explanations of any relevant background/history...sent directly to state affiliates....not membership, not media... >> >> >> >> Then, affiliates can use that information to create their own public messages and campaigns... >> >> >> >> An example might be... >> >> ...a quick bullet list of Trump's cabinet appointments, citing each individual's creds/experience and whether or not they are likely to help 'drain the swamp' >> >> >> >> Or... >> >> >> >> ...a 'cliffsnotes' version of the TPP, or other such issue, so those in state leadership have some talking points to share as they see fit. >> >> >> >> Not all affiliate leaders are experts in every matter that makes the news, but we want them to be able to speak/write on the matters from the LP perspective, as appropriate when the opportunity arises. >> >> >> >> Whitney >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 28, 2016 10:10 AM, "Demarest, David P." <David.Demarest(a)firstdata.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Whitney, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Good to see you at the recent LNC meeting. I just rediscovered your email below. I echo Caryn Ann’s sentiments and would love to participate in the think tank >> >> you have proposed. Do you need help organizing it? Would your suggested think tank take a big tent Libertarian approach or be more narrowly focused on a particular LNC perspective? I am game to participate regardless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ~David Pratt Demarest >> >> >> >> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) >> >> >> >> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee >> >> >> >> Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee >> >> >> >> Member, LNC Empowered Future Committee >> >> >> >> Board Member and Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus >> >> >> >> Cell: 402-981-6469 >> >> >> >> Home: 402-493-0873 >> >> >> >> Office: 402-222-7207 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] >> >> On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos >> >> >> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 8:28 AM >> >> >> To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Love it. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 28, 2016, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Colleagues, please consider the suggestion/request below from a Region 7 member... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The media essentially works in favor of the old parties by pumping out constant talking points that feed into the public. This is created out of the never-ending churn of political events and >> >> legislation. An example is the TPP. >> >> >> >> >> >> The idea I have is to create a group of people committee/think-tank at the national level that could discuss and research issues that come up. As libertarians we talk a lot and have resources that we look at like CATO and Reason, but we do not have something >> >> like this of our own. A core group of people that could respond quickly if needed and do the research required to give a solid LP response to the issues of the day. These could be compressed into short briefs with talking points to the state parties that could >> >> use them as they wish. >> >> >> >> >> >> Many of us get the newsletter from national but a chair or ED cannot respond quickly to everything nor to detailed research on all issues that arise. This group would have that goal. These releases would be internal and the party structure could use them as >> >> deemed fit. The team would need to have people capable of looking more deeply into legislation than just a cursory overview and be committed to turnaround times that made us responsive to ongoing events. >> >> >> >> >> >> This group would allow us to speak with a more singular and united strong voice against the hailstorm of media people are inundated with every day. >> >> >> >> >> >> In general, each brief would be a short synopsis of the subject and the LP position on it. For, Against, Neutral (pro/con). Talking points should be listed. Details can be given further after that as needed but the goal would be to be brief. People simply do >> >> not look into the details of the constant stream of information we have in front of us. It's too much. We need to get out a quick tool that can be trusted and add a counter voice in a news market that we are forced to compete with. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Whitney Bilyeu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Region 7 Representative >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In Liberty, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Caryn Ann Harlos >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - >> >> Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Communications Director, >> >> Libertarian >> >> Party of Colorado >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Colorado State Coordinator, >> >> Libertarian >> >> Party Radical Caucus >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> In Liberty, >> >> Caryn Ann Harlos >> >> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org >> >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >> >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >

1 0

Facebook posting
by Ken Moellman 29 Dec '16

29 Dec '16

Does anyone proof-read or verify Facebook posts before they get posted? The Constitution does not say any such thing. https://www.facebook.com/libertarians/photos/a.10150126121157726.302978.597… [1] -- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee Links: ------ [1] https://www.facebook.com/libertarians/photos/a.10150126121157726.302978.597…

5 13

Re: [Lnc-business] Motion for LNC meetings
by Whitney Bilyeu 29 Dec '16

29 Dec '16

It makes me sad that Freebirds is even on the list of things you must do here in Texas :/... How did that happen? On Dec 29, 2016 7:45 AM, "Joshua Katz" <planning4liberty(a)gmail.com> wrote: Except for wanting to support our elected officials in Crystal, I don't care all that much where we sit in a hotel meeting room. I do care that it not take months to decide. Therefore, I'll cosponsor what ever results from this discussion. I'll join Starchild in opposing having lunch provided, and in any event in asking that f and b minimum be counted as a cost. Especially if we go to Texas. I never got to Freebirds last time I was there, and I'm still kicking myself. On Dec 28, 2016 8:13 AM, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am seeking co-sponsors for the following motion: > > The LNC will meet at Indianapolis, IN the weekend of April 15-16, 2017. > Assuming staff can locate a reasonable meeting place, the LNC will meet at > Oklahoma City, OK the weekend of August 20-21, 2017. > > Thanks for your support and > > LIve Free, > > > Sam Goldstein > Libertarian National Committee > Member at Large > 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 > Indianapolis IN 46260 > 317-850-0726 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone > 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> Fax > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

2 1