February 2017 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Question about April meeting agenda
by Ken Moellman 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Is the plan for the April meeting to be finished on 4/16? Easter is 4/17 and I'd like to do family stuff if the agenda permits me to head on home on Saturday night. -- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

3 5

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] Question about April meeting agenda
by William Redpath 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Actually, the dates are Saturday, April 15 and Sunday, April 16 (which is Easter). Bill Redpath -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 2/6/17, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman(a)lpky.org> wrote: Subject: [Lnc-business] Question about April meeting agenda To: "Lnc Business" <lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org> Date: Monday, February 6, 2017, 9:26 AM Is the plan for the April meeting to be finished on 4/16? Easter is 4/17 and I'd like to do family stuff if the agenda permits me to head on home on Saturday night. -- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

1 0

Fwd: Re: The Wisdom of Bernie Sanders
by Ken Moellman 05 Feb '17

05 Feb '17

Nathaniel, Thank you for your message. I understand the rationale behind what you're advocating. However, I would submit that it's precisely the "lesser of two" approach that has led us to where we are today. A lack of real electoral competition due to the various election laws around the country mean that our electoral system is turning into a "Race to the Bottom" in quality. Instead, I suggest taking a look at Instant Runoff Voting a.k.a. Ranked Choice Voting. This form of voting allows voters to assign a ranked preference of candidates, so there's no burden on the voter other than being able to count basic numbers. The votes are all then tallied, and if someone has over 50%, then they win. If not, then the person with the least #1 votes is removed, and the people who chose that person as their #1 have their #2 choice moved up to #1, and the votes are re-tallied. It's hard to do by hand, but easy to do with a computer. This ensures there's no "vote-splitting" and that there's a true 50%+1 winner. And the establishment politicians fear this type of system more than anything, because it means they can't corral voters with fear anymore - candidates would actually have to run positive campaigns. You can get more information on IRV/RCV from Wikipedia, at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_Runoff_Voting [2] and from FairVote at http://www.fairvote.org/ [3] Thank you, Ken Moellman --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2017-02-04 13:42, Nathaniel Batchelder wrote: > LEARNING THE WISDOM OF BERENIE SANDERS > > Bernie Sanders ran in the Democratic Party's Primary. When Hillary Clinton became the candidate he immediately endorsed her. He begged his supporters, and members of other parties, to vote for Hillary against Donald. > > But America got Trumped. Here's how never to get Trumped again. > > In America's current two-party, winner-take-all system, one of the top two candidates is going to win. All others will lose. > > In November, 2016, some people did not vote. That did not help to defeat Trump. Some voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. That did not help to defeat Trump. Six million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 did not vote for Hillary Clinton. That did not help to defeat Trump. > > Lesson: In every U.S. election - local, state & national - ballots present voters with a better and a worse candidate, one of whom will win. All others will lose. Defeating the worse of the two is paramount, because more things will be possible during the years they will NOT be in office. It also opens the possibility of even better candidates running in future elections. > > Let us unite to defeat "the worst" in every election, if we hope ever to elect "the better" in the future. > > -- > > Peace and Onward, > Nathaniel Batchelder at The Peace House in Oklahoma City > www.PeaceHouseOK.org [1] Links: ------ [1] http://www.PeaceHouseOK.org [2] http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_Runoff_Voting [3] http://www.fairvote.org/

1 0

Fwd: The Wisdom of Bernie Sanders
by Steven Nekhaila 05 Feb '17

05 Feb '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:43 PM Subject: Re: The Wisdom of Bernie Sanders To: Nathaniel Batchelder <batchokc(a)gmail.com> Hello Nathaniel, I personally believe that voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil. I will never compromise my integrity or moral philosophy to cater to who may be least worst of two fallible options. I will always vote my conscious and will put 100% of my energy into propping up the proper candidate rather then conceding to an evil candidate who represents an even more evil system. You can count on the Libertarian Party to always support candidates, whom represent the principles of liberty and will always be the best option. And if for some reason our candidates are not the best option, you can assure that I will not support them. Alas, I have voted Libertarian in every Presidential election I have been qualified to vote in, because I believe the Libertarian Party represents my goals, values and ethics. Anything less would be throwing my vote away to a system or candidates I do not believe in. I would also surmise that everyone who voted for Hillary could have voted for Gary Johnson, the failure to do so helped Trump win. But fret not, for 2020 and beyond we will amass more voters, more support and more political equity as we have done since 1971. No matter whom the others party's put out as candidates, on the local, state and national level, you can count on the Libertarian Party to deliver the very best and most principled candidates out of the bunch. I hope you may support the Libertarian Party and our progress moving forward. Sincerely, Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Nathaniel Batchelder <batchokc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > LEARNING THE WISDOM OF BERENIE SANDERS > > > Bernie Sanders ran in the Democratic Party's Primary. When Hillary Clinton > became the candidate he immediately endorsed her. He begged his supporters, > and members of other parties, to vote for Hillary against Donald. > > But America got Trumped. Here’s how never to get Trumped again. > > In America’s current two-party, winner-take-all system, one of the top two > candidates is going to win. All others will lose. > > In November, 2016, some people did not vote. That did not help to defeat > Trump. Some voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. That did not help to > defeat Trump. Six million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 did not > vote for Hillary Clinton. That did not help to defeat Trump. > > Lesson: In every U.S. election – local, state & national – ballots present > voters with a better and a worse candidate, one of whom will win. All > others will lose. Defeating the worse of the two is paramount, because more > things will be possible during the years they will NOT be in office. It > also opens the possibility of even better candidates running in future > elections. > > Let us unite to defeat “the worst” in every election, if we hope ever to > elect “the better” in the future. > > > -- > Peace and Onward, > Nathaniel Batchelder at The Peace House in Oklahoma City > www.PeaceHouseOK.org >

2 1

Re: [Lnc-business] The Wisdom of Bernie Sanders
by Steven Nekhaila 04 Feb '17

04 Feb '17

Hello Nathaniel, I personally believe that voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil. I will never compromise my integrity or moral philosophy to cater to who may be least worst of two fallible options. I will always vote my conscious and will put 100% of my energy into propping up the proper candidate rather then conceding to an evil candidate who represents an even more evil system. You can count on the Libertarian Party to always support candidates, whom represent the principles of liberty and will always be the best option. And if for some reason our candidates are not the best option, you can assure that I will not support them. Alas, I have voted Libertarian in every Presidential election I have been qualified to vote in, because I believe the Libertarian Party represents my goals, values and ethics. Anything less would be throwing my vote away to a system or candidates I do not believe in. I would also surmise that everyone who voted for Hillary could have voted for Gary Johnson, the failure to do so helped Trump win. But fret not, for 2020 and beyond we will amass more voters, more support and more political equity as we have done since 1971. No matter whom the others party's put out as candidates, on the local, state and national level, you can count on the Libertarian Party to deliver the very best and most principled candidates out of the bunch. I hope you may support the Libertarian Party and our progress moving forward. Sincerely, Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Nathaniel Batchelder <batchokc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > LEARNING THE WISDOM OF BERENIE SANDERS > > > Bernie Sanders ran in the Democratic Party's Primary. When Hillary Clinton > became the candidate he immediately endorsed her. He begged his supporters, > and members of other parties, to vote for Hillary against Donald. > > But America got Trumped. Here’s how never to get Trumped again. > > In America’s current two-party, winner-take-all system, one of the top two > candidates is going to win. All others will lose. > > In November, 2016, some people did not vote. That did not help to defeat > Trump. Some voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. That did not help to > defeat Trump. Six million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 did not > vote for Hillary Clinton. That did not help to defeat Trump. > > Lesson: In every U.S. election – local, state & national – ballots present > voters with a better and a worse candidate, one of whom will win. All > others will lose. Defeating the worse of the two is paramount, because more > things will be possible during the years they will NOT be in office. It > also opens the possibility of even better candidates running in future > elections. > > Let us unite to defeat “the worst” in every election, if we hope ever to > elect “the better” in the future. > > > -- > Peace and Onward, > Nathaniel Batchelder at The Peace House in Oklahoma City > www.PeaceHouseOK.org >

1 0

Women
by Joshua Katz 04 Feb '17

04 Feb '17

https://lpstore.org/product-category/apparel/ It was mentioned to me today that we don't carry any women's clothing, or offer our give-away t-shirts in women's styles. I'm aware that an LP event is the only place (outside of an adult establishment) where the line is at the men's room (and not only when our chair is in there with Sen. Paul), but still, would it be feasible to offer some women's clothing? Joshua A. Katz

6 11

RCV monkey business in Maine
by Caryn Ann Harlos 03 Feb '17

03 Feb '17

I received this: *Update: *Yesterday the Maine Senate voted 24-10 to approve an unprecedented request that seeks to draw the Maine Supreme Judicial Court into a political debate on Ranked Choice Voting that was settled by a vote of the people last November. On November 8, 2016, Maine people exercised their constitutional right to *reform, alter, and totally change* the way we elect our leaders. Question 5, “An Act to Establish Ranked Choice Voting,” was approved by the second largest vote of the people in Maine’s history. *Nearly 400,000 Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens and Libertarians from across Maine voted for election reform. Our movement is strong. We will do everything in our power to defend Maine's Ranked Choice Voting law, and our constitutional right to direct democracy.* Thank you to the 10 Maine Senators who voted to defend Maine's Ranked Choice Voting law and implement it without delay: - Shenna Bellows - Cathy Breen - Brownie Carson - Justin Chenette - Ben Chipman - Mark Dion - Troy Jackson - Rebecca Millett - Dave Miramant - Eloise Vitelli Special thanks to *Maine people* who called their lawmakers and encouraged them to defend Maine's Ranked Choice Voting law; Senators *Shenna Bellows* and *Mark Dion* for speaking against the motion on the floor of the Senate; and also to former Senators *Chris Johnson* and *Dennis Damon* and former Representative *Les Fossel* for their help with this vote. Please watch this space for updates, and be prepared to take action. Also, be sure to like our Facebook page to stay up to date (link below). Thanks for all that you continue to do, Kyle Bailey, Campaign Manager -- *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 <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Your Libertarian Party Membership
by Starchild 02 Feb '17

02 Feb '17

Gordon, Thank you for taking the time to provide this thoughtful feedback. I think most of your points are very well taken. The Libertarian Party has often come across as too conservative in our messaging, even though the libertarian philosophy as you correctly point out does not inherently favor the wealthy and powerful. I strongly agree that we need to do more to speak out on behalf of the poor and the marginalized, and the issues which affect them, while recognizing that big business and the wealthy are often beneficiaries of government welfare and privilege and no friends to freedom. It pains me when our failure to adequately do this costs us the support of longtime committed libertarians like yourself who've been part of this endeavor for decades. I started the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus to address our left/right imbalance among other issues (see https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grassrootslibertarians/info) and continue to fight for those values. The day after the Nov. 8 election, I started a petition to urge members of the Electoral College to reject Donald Trump which amassed over 8,000 signatures (https://www.change.org/p/the-538-members-of-the-u-s-electoral-college-elect…) and I subsequently urged the Libertarian National Committee to support the recount efforts led by Jill Stein and the Green Party. Sadly we did not do that, however I do think that our messaging at least at the national level (I can't keep up with what all the state and local Libertarian party affiliates and candidates are saying) has improved somewhat in recent years. Our 2016 presidential and VP candidates Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were repeatedly outspoken in criticizing Donald Trump, even while being arguably softer than warranted on Hillary Clinton. I think our current chair Nick Sarwark appreciates the need to be more balanced than we have been in the past in terms of appealing to the left at least as much as to the right, and that the press releases he and staff have put out this term generally reflect that. Among the LP's recent communications this year have been a strong statement of solidarity with American Muslims who are threatened by the new administration (https://www.lp.org/we_stand_with_you/) a defense of peaceful immigration (https://www.lp.org/the-libertarian-party-opposes-restrictions-on-peaceful-i…) a defense of sex work and free speech in the face of government pressure on adult advertising platform Backpage.com (https://www.lp.org/libertarian-party-accuses-senate-subcommittee-of-aiding-…) a rejection of Trump's nominee for attorney general, Jeff Sessions (https://www.lp.org/lp-warns-cut-sessions-short/) and a condemnation of the Republican secretary of state and state supreme court in Ohio as "bullies" on ballot access (https://www.lp.org/bullies-in-ohio/) I don't want to give you the impression we agree on everything (what two libertarians do?). I confess that, in the spirit of giving credit where it is due, I just yesterday posted a message suggesting that the LP issue a press release commending the Trump administration's unprecedented freeze on issuing new regulations and executive order mandating two regs be eliminated for every new one enacted. But that does not mean for a minute that I think we should go easy on Trump, whom I consider psychologically unfit to be president and a clear and present danger in the Oval Office. I respectfully disagree with vice-chair Arvin Vohra (unless he has changed his stance since the press release you mention) in that I am ready to protest his administration now! I've joined a couple local #Resistance groups here in San Francisco, attended an anti-Trump event, written numerous critical messages and posts about him, and intend to do much more. And I know that many other Libertarians feel the same way as we do, that his temperament, authoritarian tendencies, and repeatedly expressed admiration for tyrants abroad, make him a potentially a greater threat to freedom than Barack Obama. I am also an anthropogenic global warming theory skeptic, but this skepticism predates my tenure as an LNC representative and has nothing to do with what I think our donors may want. Indeed although David Koch, as you probably know, was the party's vice-presidential nominee way back in 1980, my understanding is that the Koch brothers have not been Libertarian Party donors for decades. My views on that subject also have more to do with seeking to protect the environment than with seeking to protect the fossil fuel industry – I am concerned that exaggerated fears about global warming over which humans have limited influence are diverting attention from the more serious environmental issues of habitat destruction and species extinction that demand our urgent attention. While public fears are disproportionately focused on a possible warming of a couple degrees over the next century and related concerns about polar bears and pipeline construction (by the way I do oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline for its reliance on eminent domain and violation of treaties with Indian tribes, I just don't see it as a major environmental issue), the areas of greatest biodiversity on the planet are endangered. Tropical rainforests are burning, species like tigers and elephants are being poached to extinction in the wild, and coral reefs dying due largely to destructive government policies that keep people in the parts of the world that contain these habitats poor, and fail to uphold the property rights and market mechanisms that are needed to effectively safeguard the world's natural heritage. Regarding police abuse and mass incarceration and their disproportionate impact on minority communities, it's not true that we've entirely ignored these issues. For instance in a press release last July, Nick Sarwark wrote, "The frustration in the black community is palpable, and frankly, justified. When rogue cop after rogue cop gets off scot-free after using excessive force and changes are not made, and consequences are not felt, it causes this horrible tension we are feeling today." (https://www.lp.org/libertarian-party-calls-for-an-end-to-all-violence/) But you're right that we have too often been silent when it comes to the injustices associated with police and prisons in this country, and that we need to speak out about them louder and more frequently. We badly need voices like yours to remind and encourage us to do this, and hold our feet to the fire when we do not. The number of people involved in the LP is not so great that one person like yourself cannot make a critical difference. I often point out to Libertarians or prospective Libertarians who are unsure of whether it's worth putting their personal time and energy into the LP, that just a dozen additional delegates could have made the difference between having former Republican congressman Bob Barr (an apparent opportunist who subsequently went back to the GOP) as our presidential candidate in 2008, or Mary Ruwart, a hardcore libertarian who wrote "Healing Our World", a book that I consider one of the best in-depth resources for showing people on the left the compassionate and cooperative nature of our philosophy. Will you do your part as a movement elder to help give the Libertarian Party you helped birth more leaders who understand these issues? Writing to your national representatives is a good first step. You might be surprised how few LP members take the time to do this. I have copied your message along with my reply to the Libertarian National Committee list, so that the dozens of people subscribed to our reflector list or reading these messages online (available at http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/) will be able to hear your concerns. Instead of abandoning the most pro-freedom party in the United States, of which you have long been a loyal member and activist, and increasing the likelihood of it becoming a "crabbed version of an alt.Republican Party" in your words, I urge you to join those of us who recognize this danger, roll up your sleeves and get to work! Please feel free to give me a call any time if you'd like to discuss more ideas on how to do this. And thank you again for caring, taking time to write, and your efforts in the struggle for freedom! Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF “If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning… This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” – Frederick Douglass , 1857 speech at Canandaigua, New York ( http://www.blackpast.org/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there… ) On Feb 1, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Gordon Rogers wrote: > Mr. Benedict -- > > I have attached my response to your query about renewing my membership in the LP as a Word document as well as answering you in the text below. > > Gordon Rogers > > --------------- > > Dear Mr. Benedict et al: > > I want to let you know why I decided to let my membership in the Libertarian Party lapse. > > I am not sure how long I was a dues-paying member of the party. I know that I voted for John Hospers in 1972. (I had to write in his name, since he was on the ballot in only two states when he ran). I was an annual dues-paying member of the LP for a long time before I became a monthly donor, and I was a monthly donor for many years. I have also been a candidate for office as a Libertarian and I have been a delegate to national conventions, both more than 20 years ago. > > I have been increasingly disappointed in the extent to which the LP has mirrored the Republican agenda and their talking points. I understand that Libertarian positions are distinct from Republican ones on several issues, but I am concerned that the LP has put on blinders when it comes to seeing the change that is actually needed in this country. The number of areas in which the freedoms of citizens could be improved is countless but the focus of the party seems to be primarily on those areas chosen by the Republicans for their own agenda. (I am under no illusions that the Republicans will actually do what they say they want to do, but that is a separate issue. I am not leaving the LP for the GOP – far from it). > > The agenda of the Republican Party seems to be determined by the two main elements of its base – the so-called social conservatives and the business community. The LP has successfully distinguished itself from the social conservatives, but due to its own failings it has allowed itself to be perceived as just like the Republicans “only more so” in every other respect. I think it is indisputable that the Republican agenda, despite its rhetoric, is not primarily a free market agenda but a large corporate business agenda. The public messaging of the LP does little to counter the impression that the LP is “only more so.” > > I am not suggesting that the LP has abandoned its principles. I am saying that the LP has allowed its focus to change in ways detrimental to itself, to its ultimate goals and to the American people. I suspect that the reason for this is that while attempting to adhere to its principles, it directs its focus to areas favored by its largest donors – and yes, I am thinking of the Koch family when I say this. I appreciate the efforts the Kochs have made to advancing ideas of liberty, but I am under no illusions that they are much more self-interested than they are liberty-interested. My concern is that even while advocating liberty for all, focusing efforts to increase liberty primarily in selected arenas of society is actually anti-liberal. I am sure you are familiar with the Anatole France quote: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” The point for me is that even if the focus of the LP is exclusively on increasing liberty, it cannot work to increase liberty just for some without also working to create an unjust and illiberal society. Perhaps an extreme example of this principle is the American South in the early history of our country. Many of our strongest early advocates for liberty came from the South and yet they countenanced the most egregious abuses of human liberty possible. > > We have real problems in this country and many of them are not being addressed by the LP. I hear the LP arguing for lower tax rates, for repealing the ACA (“Obamacare”), for repealing laws adverse to alternate political parties, for reducing federal regulations. I don’t hear much of anything from the LP, for example, on climate change (other than hints that the LP may be a climate change denier, and is at least skeptical to the point of pooh-poohing any problems). Whether you agree or not, a majority of the American people sees climate change as a vital problem and wants to have it addressed. This is a problem that can be addressed using freedom principles but because these principles impose costs on those contributing to the problem, most of the larger, corporate contributors are opposed to them. The LP shouldn’t be, though. And neither should it be silent. > > I don’t hear anything from the LP about the black incarceration disgrace or police shootings of unarmed blacks other than that drugs should be legalized. Yes they should, but that is not the sole or even a major cause of those two problems. If it was, there would not be a disproportion in black versus white incarceration rates or lengths of prison sentences, just as there is not a disproportion in black versus white users or distributors. Income disparity in this country is not increasing so dramatically merely because of new regulations imposed on small (or large) businesses, but you wouldn’t know it from listening to the LP (or to the GOP). And so on. > > These are among the biggest problems our country faces, problems that threaten to tear us apart. Yet there is scant attention paid to them by the LP, and to the extent that attention is paid, the solutions offered are peripheral to the causes. > > What I see nowadays from the LP is a “libertarianism” that primarily benefits the large banks, the large corporations, and those who are well-established in society. But libertarian principles don’t favor them – they favor all people equally. While it may be mentioned in the fine print somewhere, there is no outcry from the LP about laws and regulations that were lobbied for and often written by large corporations and which benefit them exclusively. Sure, these kinds of things are obscure – deliberately so – but they are responsible for much of the lack of freedom and opportunity in our country. Everyone knows they are there. Everyone knows the system is rigged. And no one – certainly not the LP – seems particularly interested in fixing that problem. > > People deserve the right to become rich. However, relatively few of the super-rich today became that way while observing libertarian principles. The fact of their wealth does not merit coddling or silence by the LP. > > I stopped my financial support of the LP before the election, but I have to add that the LP’s response – or should I say non-response – to Donald Trump is outrageous. “Not protesting Trump – yet” written by the LP vice-chair is the only word from the LP I have seen on Trump to date, and in it he compares Trump favorably to Obama – who WAS protested frequently and often. If you cannot see already that Trump is a far worse disaster for liberty, for the constitution, and for our country that Obama ever was, then I have no hope for the LP. > > When I was younger and the LP was younger, the LP was known for having vision and for being independent. Now it seems to be nothing more than a crabbed version of an alt.Republican_Party, scurrying about within the bounds set presumably by its donors. It should tell you something that after all this time, it is still so hard for the public to distinguish “libertarian” from “very conservative.” > > I still support human freedom. I am sorry to say that I no longer have any desire to be associated with the LP. > > Gordon Rogers > 111 Anderson Ave > Columbia MO 65203 > > > > From: Wes Benedict <info(a)lp.org> > To: grogersrn(a)yahoo.com > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:07 PM > Subject: Your Libertarian Party Membership > > > > Dear Gordon, > > By being a Libertarian Party member, you are a revolutionary, working > toward a better system and a better country. > > By being a Libertarian Party member, you stand in defiance of the Rs and > Ds and their big-government antics. > > By being a Libertarian Party member, you stand for liberty and justice, > for all people, all the time. > > Thank you for being a member of the Libertarian Party. > > We are growing like never before and are proud to have you standing with us. > > Gordon, please know that your sustaining membership expires on 12/31/2016. > > I hope you will renew your Libertarian Party membership as soon as possible. > > We need devoted Libertarians like you standing with us every day as we > build the Party all across America. > > Renew your membership online by clicking on the button below or by phone by calling 1-800-ELECT-US. > > > > Thanks again for your support. > > > > > Wes Benedict > Executive Director > > > > > > > > > > Paid for by the LIBERTARIAN > National Committee, Inc. (LNC) > 1444 Duke St., > Alexandria, Virginia 22314 > > Content not authorized by any > candidate or candidate committee. > > > > > This message was sent to grogersrn(a)yahoo.com from: > > > > <Letter to the LP.doc>

2 1

Fwd: We won the debates case!
by Carla Howell 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '17

FYI, Level the Playing Field won its case, in which the LNC is a plaintiff, in US District court against the FEC. This could lead to forcing the CPD to change its criteria for inclusion in presidential debates. The order states: "The FEC is ORDERED to reconsider the evidence and allegations and issue a new decision consistent with this Opinion “within 30 days, failing which the complainant[s] may bring, in the name of such complainant[s], a civil action to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint.” The FEC is FURTHER ORDERED to reconsider the Petition for Rulemaking and issue a new decision consistent with this Opinion within sixty days." We are awaiting more info from the attorney before we send out a press release. Carla Howell Political Director National Libertarian Party 202-333-0008 x 222

4 3