Report on Speech at Texas Drug Policy Conferencelpdallas.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/LPDC... · by Paul Petersen by Mike Kolls. Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February

Report on Speech at Texas Drug Policy Conference

The Texas Drug PolicyConference was heldJanuary 17-18 at theAdolphus Hotel inDallas. The event wassponsored by MothersAgainst Teen Violence.The theme of theconference was“Building a Movement”.The organizers areworking for drug policyreform as characterized by an end to nonviolent drug-related arrests, access to treatment (instead of arrest) for anyone in thethroes of addiction, and access to medical cannabis for cancer patients and others without fear of criminalization.

I represented the Libertarian Party in a panel discussion entitled “Drug Policy – Where Do Texas Parties Stand?” The Chair of the Democratic Party of Dallas County as well as a member of the executive committee of the Republican Party ofTarrant County also participated. Each participant spoke for about 15 minutes, and then we all took questions from the audience.

The outline of my remarks was as follows:

1) Dangers of Drug Use are Overblown2) Drug Prohibition Does Not Work3) Drug Prohibition is Immoral

This was my first time participating in this conference, so I really didn’t know what to expect. I thought it might be a bunch of upright moralists advocating even more Draconian drug laws, so I was prepared for the possibility that I would not be well-received. However, I was pleased and surprised to find that virtually everyone at this conference was calling for an end to the War on Drugs, even though there were only a few Libertarians that I recognized. Many of these people have seen lives ruined by the incarceration (and the resulting stigma) of non-violent drug users, or by violence created by prohibition and the increasing militarization of local police forces.

I left encouraged that there are a lot of people out there who are open to the Libertarian position on drug policy, and it is NOT just the usual suspects like our friends at NORML, the Marijuana Policy Project, and the like.

-- Invitation from Paul Petersen --

Libertarians: Please join us at our upcoming Precinct and County conventions! These important events are the vehicle by which our party nominates candidates and tends to high-level business. At the Precinct conventions, we determine the delegates to the County convention. At the County convention, we will vote to officially nominate the candidates for County offices and State offices for districts fully contained within Dallas county. We will alsoelect officers for the Libertarian Party of Dallas County for the upcoming term, and entertain any changes to LPDC Bylaws. Come join us, and don't forget your Dallasvoter registration card!

Laws for All

If something is legal does that make it right? Are there times when civil disobedience is required?

What about the case where legislation specifically exempts some privileged citizens?

The Federalist Papers are clear that all legislation passed is applied to all citizens within the United States, AND the elected leaders. The American Colonies

were at odds with a corrupt and oppressive Mother England. English laws passed against the colonies greatly benefited the English rulers at the expense of the colonists. There were no stamp acts, troop quartering, or tea taxes for English citizens or their leaders. This English tyranny spurred a revolution.

Page 1

by Paul Petersen

by Mike Kolls

Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February 2014

Today Federal Representatives, Senators, and bureaucrats are not subject to the legislation they create. A short but incomplete list of these laws includes:

• Insider Trading• Social Security• Medicare• The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

(ACA), aka Obamacare• Public school regulations – most children of

Washington’s finest attend private school• Monopoly/Anti-Trust – the federal government itself

is an unnatural monopoly

I see these politiciansimposing theirbureaucracy upon me.Why does their “action”compel my participation?If their central-planning isfor the greater good, whydon't they includethemselves in these“good” programs?

I imagine if they werealso compelled toparticipate, theshortcomings of these onerous laws would become all too apparent, causing the laws to be repealed.

Social Security and Medicare have been deemed “unsustainable” for decades upon decades. ACA will cost citizens far more than originally promised. Our chief executiveadmitted that government does not do things well. If so, then why are all these programs mandated and enforced by the federal government in the first place?

Conservers of the Statist Quo

The following speech was made by Kevin L Fredericksonat 'Give Me Liberty!', a forum for libertarians who want to practice public speaking.

This week marks the anniversary of the founding of the Libertarian Party on

December 11, 1971. Nixon had just announced that price controls were to be imposed and that the final link between the

dollar and gold would be severed. Republicans had never beenstrong defenders of liberty. This was just the latest in an endless series of Republican state interventions.

Today, as then, to be a Republican is to be conservative. The term conservative implies that something is to be conserved. Conservatives would like us to think they want to conserve liberty, free markets, and limited government. But in truth, conservatives at best want to conserve the status quo. But the status quo varies with time and place. Originally, conservatives were those who supported monarchy, aristocracy, and centralization - the 'old order'. But as Murray Rothbard observed, "The Old Order was, and still remains, thegreat and mighty enemy of liberty."

In his essay Why I amNot a Conservative,Friedrich von Hayekpoints out that by its verynature, conservatism"cannot offer analternative to thedirection in which we aremoving." It may slowdown our movementtoward unlimitedgovernment, but it cannotstop it. It has, for thisreason, invariably beenthe fate of conservatismto be "dragged along apath not of its ownchoosing."

Similarly, author RobertAnton Wilson remarked that "it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." Leo Rosten defined a conservative as "One who admires radicals a century after they're dead."

Hayek also criticizes conservatism for its anti-democratic attitude. He rightly insists that the enemy of liberty is unlimited government, not democracy. Conservatives often condemn democracy because it leads to socialism. Yet conservatism has always been characterized by nationalism, which easily leads to collectivism. And so conservatives have often hypocritically adopted socialist policies of their own.

We're supposed to believe, for instance, that conservatives oppose the welfare state. But the model for the modern welfare state was introduced by the ultra-conservative Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of Germany, in order to buy politicalsupport for the Emperor. Its purpose was to forestall a socialistrevolution - and conserve the status quo.

Page 2

by Kevin L. Frederickson

Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February 2014

Another conservative policy is so-called 'antitrust' law. The belief iswidespread that during the'Progressive' era in the early1900s, government had tointervene to stop monopolies andsave the free market. But ashistorian Gabriel Kolko explained,although there were attempts toform cartels and monopoliesbefore antitrust laws wereimposed, these attempts failedbecause of the competition of thefree market.

The purpose of the government'sintervention was to create monopolies; to allow those who dominated the market to continue to dominate it, without fear of competition - to solidify their place in the market, and conserve the status quo. Hence the title of Kolko's book, The Triumph of Conservatism.

During the cold war conservatives supported massive military spending. Their reasoning seemed to be that "we" were defending ourselves against communism, therefore big government was okay, as long as it was due to military spending. Our government today still spends massive amountsof money on the military. But now they're "saving" us from terrorism instead of communism. And now, along with the ever-expanding warfare-welfare state, we have an added bonus: the ever-expanding Orwellian police state.

Speaking of George Orwell, he once wrote that "the real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries, but between authoritarians and libertarians." The question is: what is to be conserved, or what is to be achieved by revolution? Conservatives today - as always- wish to conserve whatever state of affairs happens to exist at the moment. Which today means imperialism, centralization, economic favoritism, the warfare-welfare-

police state - and their own power. These are all conservative policies. And their purpose, once again, is to conserve the status - or statist – quo.

In the final analysis, conservatives wish to conserve everything - except freedom.

The term conservative was once considered derisive by

advocates of liberty. It became more respectable after World War II. The only way conservatives could achieve this was by promoting the idea that they were champions of liberty, while in reality they were nothing of the kind. Conservative rhetoric changed, but conservatism itself did not. This is exactly what Ron Hamowy was referring to when he remarked, in a debate with William Buckley in the 1960s, "I, for one, do not very much mind that a philosophy which has for centuries dedicated itself to trampling upon the rights of the individual and glorifying the state should have its old name back."

The idea that freedom and limited government are conservative principles is pure myth. Those who value liberty do not allow their minds to be enslaved by myths. Where minds are free, people are free - because free minds recognize that traditions are not always worth conserving. Some traditions are never worth conserving, such as big government.Some traditions are worth conserving only at certain times, butnot others. But there is one tradition that is always worth conserving - no matter what age we happen to live in.

And that is liberty.

Spring Leadership ConferenceSaturday, March 1st, in DFW

The Libertarian Party of Texas is excited to announce a Spring training conferences for Libertarian delegates, County chairs, and candidates. While our goal is the same as our Fall series of conferences (to empower Libertarian activists!), we will offer new material in a unique format.

This conference is designed to be INTERACTIVE. Pleasebring your laptop!

Lunch is included in the very low, $25 registration fee. Please do your part to spread the word and invite all the Libertarians you know who are ready to join the revolution here in Texas. NOW is the time!

DFW Airport Marriott South4151 Centreport DriveFort Worth, Texas 76155Saturday, March 1, 2014

Register Here

With Love and for Liberty,

Heather FazioMembership ManagerLP Texas

Page 3

Otto von Bismarck

George Orwell

Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February 2014

512-291-6671512-825-9142 cell

Bureaucrats

Unelected bureaucrats make muchlaw (in the form of rules orregulations). In fact, in terms ofnumbers of pages, bureaucratsmake more law than legislators.Legislatures often write laws ingeneral terms, and leave it tobureaucrats to fill in the detailswith rules that have the force oflaw. These rules can be extremelysignificant. The most infamousTransportation SafetyAdministration procedures, for example, were not prescribed by Congress, but came from the agency’s rules. Therefore, to influence government, we have to be aware of the bureaucrats’rules that may require our action. It’s enlightening to realize that one of the Libertarian Party’s greatest victories was a successful attempt by the national party a number of years ago(pre-911) to defeat the “Know Your Customer” regulation proposed by two bank regulatory agencies, by generating a quarter of a million formal comments against it.

At the federal level, agencies publish notice of proposed rules in the Monday-through-Friday Federal Register. Citizens have the right to make formal comments on these regulations. Thereare a couple of caveats here though: (1) There are thousands ofpages of proposed regulations each year, and it’s hard even be aware of them; plus (2) I had a student who worked for a federal agency, who said they got many comments to their proposed rules, and just threw them away. Remember, however, that comments have worked sometimes. The final regulations are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Texas government bureaucrats also make many rules,and I’m more familiar with the Texas law. Proposed rules are found in the Texas Register,

published by the Texas Secretary of State every Friday, and the codified version of final rules is the Texas Administrative Code. On paper, at least – I don’t know how well it works in

practice - citizens have greater rights to try to influence bureaucrats at the Texas level than at the federal level. As at the federal level, citizens in Texas have the right to notice of proposed rules, in the Texas Register, and to comment on the rules. Going beyond this, in Texas, if commenters request it in advance or up to 30 days after the rule is adopted, the agency must issue a “concise statement” giving the reasons for adoption andansweringarguments madeagainst adoption.How this statementis made isn’t clear,and apparently nostatement is requiredto explain why rules(including rules tomake repeals) werenot adopted. Also,25 people or an association with at least 25 members may request a public hearing, which must be granted. Furthermore, anyone (apparently) may petition for adoption of a rule that the citizen has proposed (including repeals of previous rules, I assume) by the agency. The agency has 60 days to decide whether to put the proposal through the rulemaking process, orto reject the proposed rule, giving reasons. Finally, anyone can, in advance, request that an agency give mailed advance notice when a new rule is proposed by that agency. Apparently, they can make a standing request for noticed of allnew proposed rules. Not surprisingly, the act, which was first passed in the early 70s, got some major amendments in 1993 which in the balance reduced citizen rights to the present level.Originally, as I recall, the agency routinely had to answer comments without a request, and a petition could automatically force a formal rulemaking process. See Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001 for the Texas Administrative Procedure Act.

Another opportunity for citizen influence in Texas is the sunset process (see Texas Government Code, Chapter 325).

Page 4

by Barry Smith

Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February 2014

Most agencies (the ones created by the Constitution are exceptions) are automatically abolished (on a staggered basis, a few at a time) every 12 years, unless the Legislature takes the trouble to reauthorize them. Few agencies are abolished, but there is an intense scrutiny of them, often with major changes resulting. The Sunset Advisory Commission studies them (including holding public hearings), and makes a recommendation to the Legislature, which decides. The Legislature can also reauthorize an agency in advance if it wants to. The sunset year of an agency is a particularly sensitive time for us to try to force change if we want to.

Sometimes informal influence not explicitly provided for by law may be used. This, of course would vary with the circumstances, and success might require careful behind-the-scenes dealing. As an example, I know someone who follows a particular agency. She attended a public hearing of that agency, and the agency allowed no members of the public to say anything. Texas Rangers were there to silence them. It wasjust a PR event. After the hearing was over, she spoke to the agency attorney privately, pointing out that they couldn’t do that legally. The attorney agreed, saying that he’d been trying to get the commission to change the policy, without success. He asked her to send him a letter of protest, which he could use as leverage in his argument. She did. As a result, they opened at least some hearings to public comment.

In summary, there are ways to deal with bureaucrats if we know what we’re doing.

John Cornyn: Just Another Status Quo Pol

John Cornyn, the Republican Senior US Senator from Texas,is running for reelection yet again in 2014.

Libertarian Party candidates vying to run against him are Jon Roland of Austin, RebeccaPaddock from the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and Tanuja Paruchuri from the Houston area.

When Cornyn's recent campaign ad called President Barack Obama "Astonishingly Liberal" nearly every libertarian and conservative and even many Democratic Party supporters likely agreed.

About the only ones who won't agree are the true

"Astonishingly Liberal" progressives on the far hardcore Marxist political left who dislike Obama because he just isn't liberal enough.

But when Cornyn's ad says "He stands up to Obama every day" libertarians will part company with those others following a loud guffaw.

Cornyn, like virtually every other sitting politician in Washington DC, is a deeply committed, securely plugged-in supporter of the One Party status quo.

Cornyn is as unlikely to care about anyone or anything other than retaining his grip on taxpayer pelf, personal power, perks,privileges, pork, patronage and payoffs as any other political opportunist who labels himself as a Republican or Democrat.

Like all career mainstream professional politicians Cornyn "cares" about "the people" only so far as he can get what he wants from us: votes and campaign donations.

Notice that "principles" wasn't one of the P words paraded in the previous paragraph.

While the mainstream status quo media continually try to characterize libertarians as a wing of the Republican Party there's little for the Libertarian Partiers to like about the self-described conservative Cornyn.

The only previous times Dallas Libertarian Examiner botheredto mention the Senator was to note that he voted for TARP, thecriminal government's $700 billion taxpayer ripoff to bail out their criminal cronies in the financial industries, and his support for the multibillionaire TransCanada corporatists to ram their Keystone Pipeline across his fellow Texan's private property because it means big bucks for the status quo corporatists, banksters and politicians like himself.

And his ad laughingly proclaims "John Cornyn's for us. For Texans."

Voting for Libertarians is the only possible way to change the

Page 5

by Garry Reed

Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February 2014

criminal status quo.

Arguing whether you want Democrats or Republicans to run your life is like arguing whether you want the Bonanno or the Gambino Mafia crime family to run your life.

When you vote for a Status Quo mainstream political party it'slike voting for the Republicanno or Democratti Government Mafia crime families.

Editor's Note: Re-published from the Dallas Libertarian Examiner (www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-dallas) with permission from the author.

New LPDC Membership Program!

Want to help out the LPDC and at the same time get somecool libertarian swag? Check out our new contributor membership program!

Liberphobia

The following speech was made by Kevin L Fredericksonat 'Give Me Liberty!', a forum for libertarians who want to practice public speaking.

Today, January 9, is the birthday of Czech author Karel

Capek, who wrote the play RUR (Rossum's Universal Robots)which introduced the word 'robot' to the English language. Theplay begins in a factory that makes artificial people, made of synthetic organic matter. But Capek's robots are closer to the modern idea of cyborgs or even clones, as they are identical in

appearance to humans and can think for themselves. They seem happy to work for humans, but things change - until eventually a hostile robot rebellion leads to the extinction of mankind.

There are no doubt somewho are thrilled at thethought of the destructionof the human race, but inmost people the ideaunderstandably inducesfear. A lot of sciencefiction and horror relieson the element of fear toachieve its effect: fear ofthe unknown, fear ofpowerful forces beyondour control. There issomething else that relieson fear to be effective(even more so than horrorand science fiction) - andthat is the power ofgovernment. The first prioroty of politicians and bureaucrats isto preserve and extend their own power, and they always employ fear to achieve this.

John Adams noted that fear is "the foundation of most governments". General Douglas Macarthur once remarked that "Our government has kept usin a perpetual state of fear with the cry of grave national emergency... Always there has been some

terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it." In the words of H L Mencken, "The whole aim of practicalpolitics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."

The latest in this endless series of hobgoblins is the threat of terrorism. Our government maintains a permanent climate of fear, in order to frighten the people into forfeiting their liberty and giving more power to the state. They claim, for example, that in order to protect us from terrorists, they must have the power to spy on us and search us randomly, without a warrant,and without probable cause. After the 9/11 attacks, pollster John Zogby reported: “I’ve never seen anything like it before. The willingness to give up personal liberties is stunning, because the level of fear is so high.”

Page 6

by Kevin L. FredericksonH. L. Mencken

Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February 2014

Before the threat of terrorism there was the threat of communism. During the Korean War itwas assumed that if the U.S. didn't prevent the communist takeover of South Korea, we were all doomed. Senator Ralph Flanders noted that "Fear is felt and spread by the Department of Defense inthe Pentagon. In part, the spreading of it is

purposeful. Faced with what seem to be enormous armed forces aimed against us, we can scarcely expect the Department of Defense to do other than keep the people in a state of fear so that they will be prepared without limit to furnish men and munitions."

As Robert Higgs explains in Crisis and Leviathan, national emergency has been "the fountainhead for the greater part of the growth of government." The attitude of government bureaucrats toward emergencies is occasionally revealed by their own statements. During the recession that began in 2008,Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel declared "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put Rahm's statement into even more revealing words. She said "never waste a goodcrisis."

In addition to the fearof terrorism,communism, andrecession, ourpoliticians exploitendless other fears,including the fear ofguns, drugs, poverty,and capitalism. And ofcourse the climate of fear wouldn't be complete without...fear of the climate. Whatever the threat of the day happens to be, the actual threat is rarely anywhere near as great as the perceived threat. Even when the threat is somewhat real, it is usually a result of the government's own activities. In other words, the dangers that government is "saving" us from are almost always dangers that government itself created in the

first place. For example, the 9/11 terrorist attacks were obviously a response to our government's endless and unjustifiable military interventions in the middle east.

Furthermore, it is not the aim of politicians, nor is it in their interest, to remove or even reduce the perceived threat. Their aim is rather to expand their own sphere of power; if anything,it is in their interest to increase the threat - thereby providing aconvenient excuse to give themselves yet more power, and deprive the people of yet more of their liberties.

There is one threat that politicians take very seriously, becauseit is a threat to their own power - and that is freedom. More freedom in the hands of the people always means less power in the hands of the state; conversely, more government always means less freedom. So, just as the state has an interest in expanding its power, the people have an interest in preventing it. And so it becomes necessary for politicians to convince us to view liberty just as they do: as a threat.

The greatest threat to the state is the fact that we don't need it. But politicians would have us believe that liberty is dangerous.They would have us believe that it is in our interest to forfeit our liberty and give them the unlimited power they so desire. They would have us believe that without them, we would spend every minute of our lives smoking crack and trying to kill each other, and that therefore we need them to protect us from ourselves and from each other.

There is another sense in which the power of the state rests on fear. As George Washington observed, "government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." More fundamental than fear of terrorists, communists, or recessions is the fear of the state itself. It is the threat of force that makes us obey the state's arbitrary laws.

The word robot is derived from the Czech word for slave. Fearenslaves the mind. It is only enslavement of the mind that makes physical enslavement possible. In effect, a slave has no will of his own; his will is merely an extension of another man's will. He is a mere tool, a robot. Unwarranted fear turns people into robots. It makes them obey without hesitation, without thinking - without question.

When FDR was elected president he proclaimed, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But in truth politicians thrive on fear. Their greatest fear is the absence of fear. John Basil Barnhill once wrote, "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." The observation is accurate - because when fear of the state vanishes, the coercive and arbitrary power of the state vanishes along with it.

Page 7

Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February 2014

New Proposed School on the Federalist Papers

From Mike Kolls: It's time to consider a Federalist Papers class/discussion. The Federalist Papers served as a campaign to adopt the Constitution of the United States (in 1787 and 1788). These 85 papers provided the philosophy of the new federal Republic and then offered specific reasons for each provision.

The class will be structured similarly to a that of a book club. Those who read the 33 selected papers will benefit the most from attending, but some material will also be lecture style. We will meet for 1.5 to 2 hours for 4 Thursday nights. Each week's "worksheet" has fill-in-the-blank questions for each assigned paper. I'd like to meet in the Carrollton/Farmers Branch area.

If you are interested, please contact me via e-mail, [email protected]. Thanks!

Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Edward Snowden has shed much light on our government's activities. It seems that his disclosures are only to correct lies told, or provide truths withheld, by elected federal leaders. If our leaders were transparent and forthright, Mr. Snowden’s disclosures would not be controversial.

What oath or standard do we hold Mr. Snowden to? Is it his oath to NSA or to the

Constitution? I do believe that NSA surveillance creates a general warrant and thus violates the protections provided by Amendment IV. Loyalty to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, must trump all other secular oaths for American citizens.

Most objections to Mr. Snowden are “the way” he went about his disclosures. If the information you have contradicts or indicts powerful people, it would be foolish to provide the information amongst them (especially within the auspices of their own rules). It would be like snitching on the mob – very dangerous.

Does the security of the nation hinge on the wisdom of a 30 year old? If he has all the information they assume he has, I hope he is wise beyond his years.

Like many libertarians, I’m leaning towards Edward Snowden being a hero. He certainly is resourceful and courageous.

Upcoming Meetings

• Trivia night at Trinity Hall ◦ Every Sunday Night, 7:30 PM◦ Trinity Hall Irish Pub & Restaurant

5321 E Mockingbird Ln, Dallas, TX

• LP Texas Spring Leadership Conference◦ March 1st, 8:00 AM◦ DFW Airport Marriott South

4151 Centreport Drive, Fort Worth, TX

• LPDC Executive Committee Meeting◦ March 2nd, 4:00 PM◦ T he Elbow Room

3010 Gaston Ave., Dallas, TX

• LPDC Precinct Conventions – All Dallas County Precincts◦ March 11th, 7:00 PM◦ T he Elbow Room

3010 Gaston Ave., Dallas, TX

• Dallas County Convention◦ March 15th, 12:00 PM◦ T exas Land & Cattle Steakhouse

812 S. Central Expressway, Richardson, TX

• 2014 Tarrant-Dallas District Convention◦ March 22nd, 7:00 PM◦ Hampton Inn and Suites

2700 Green Oaks Road (I-30 and Green Oaks Road), Fort Worth, TX

• LPDC General Meeting◦ April 8th, 7:00 PM

2nd Tuesday of Every Month (starting in April)◦ Sambuca - Uptown

2120 McKinny Ave., Dallas, TX

• LP Texas 2014 State Convention◦ April 11th, 8:00 AM – April 13th

◦ Temple Hilton Garden Inn1749 Scott Blvd., Temple, TX

Up-to-date meeting announcements and details can always be found on meetup.com. (www.meetup.com/Dallas-Libertarians/)

Page 8

by Mike Kolls

Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas February 2014

Libertarian References

• Books◦ Good to be King, Michael Badnarik◦ Why Government Doesn't Work, Harry Browne◦ Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand◦ Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz◦ Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt◦ Healing Our World, Dr. Mary Ruwart

• Videos◦ Neitzsche and the Nazis, Stephen Hicks◦ Bullsh*t!, Penn & Teller◦ Free to Choose, Milton Friedman◦ America: Freedom to Fascism, Aaron Russo

• Websites◦ The Libertarian Party of Dallas County

lpdallas.org◦ The Libertarian Party of Texas

lptexas.org◦ The National Libertarian Party

www.lp.org◦ Free Talk Live

www.freetalklive.com◦ The Cato Institute

www.cato.org◦ Molinari Institute

praxeology.net/molinari.htm◦ Objectivism In-Brief

mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/InBrief

Page 9

LPDC Officer ListChair – Paul Petersen ([email protected])Vice-Chair – Curry Taylor ([email protected])Secretary – Jordan Wagnon ([email protected])Treasurer – Paul Osborn ([email protected])

LPDC At-Large DirectorsMarshall Beerwinkle ([email protected])Kevin Frederickson ([email protected])Dave Mason ([email protected])

Working Committee LeadersMarketing – Curry Taylor ([email protected])Events – Kevin Frederickson ([email protected])

The LPDC is a local branch of the Libertarian Party based in Dallas County, Texas. Find out more about the LPDC at http://lpdallas.org. The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the UnitedStates, and was established in 1971 to promote more freedom and less intrusive government in all aspects of life. Find out more about the LP at http://www.lp.org.

Hey you!

Are you done reading this newsletter? Get one of your friends orfamily members to read it!