What if it’s a lie that “curiosity killed the cat”? What if curiosity is just what we now need to save that lost cat named America?
As a fairly notorious archconservative I like to tease (in a friendly way) my very dear Progressive friends. One tease is by telling them that I get most of my information from Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, and NPR … just as do most Tea Partiers.
This actually is true for me. The tease resides in the assertion that most Tea Partiers do too. Most people — from the left and the right — go to publications that reflect their own biases. (We all are biased.) Conservatives are more likely to read National Review, progressives to read MoJo. So what’s up with my eccentric reading (and, hello NPR, listening) habits?
Paying attention to the perspectives of others helps me keep myself out of (or at least minimize) my own blind spots. (We all have blind spots.) It helps me address the soggy bits in my own worldview. It also has generated in me huge respect for my ideological adversaries, even when, as usual, I am not persuaded by their arguments.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s provocative 2007 mega best seller, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, introduces an important thought. Talib, as an aside, notes
“One highlight of the year 2006 was to find in my mailbox a draft manuscript of a book called Cognitive Diversity: How Our Individual Differences Produce Collective Benefits, by Scott Page.
“Cognitive diversity” means we see things and process information differently and thereby together are more able to spot opportunities that more likely would elude any one of us. This is an old insight splendidly dressed up in a fancy new name.
There is a famous Eastern parable. Wikipedia relays its use by the Buddha:
“In the Udana he uses the elephant parable to describe sectarian quarrels. A king has the blind men of the capital brought to the palace, where an elephant is brought in and they are asked to describe it.
When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: ‘Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?’
The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king.
LivingRoomConversations.org, a project co-founded by MoveOn.org co-founder Joan Blades with which I am intimately involved has systematized and makes easy the process of learning to listen, respectfully, to one another. Most of the tiny team of leaders of this project engage in this to find common ground on contentious issues of the day. Their curiosity and open-mindedness (even to my bewilderingly archconservative views) is a delight. It works!
Progressives, famously, wonderfully, celebrate diversity. By adding cognitive diversity to the celebration party … we “have some hope of making progress.” As LivingRoomConversations.org shows: curiosity is our best hope of saving the cat.
Are libertarians Utopians? How to respond when told you’re “Utopian”Retweet
Tell people they should live without aggressing against others and they’ll probably agree. Tell them that politicians should do the same and they may accuse you of being Utopian. How can you counter this charge? Start here…
Ask them what they mean by Utopian. One of two answers is likely…
A perfect society
An unattainable society
If they give you the second answer, ask them to describe why the society is unattainable. You’ll probably get a laundry list of reasons, each of which could make for an interesting discussion. However…
If they give you the linguistically correct answer, that the term “Utopian” describes a perfect society, a more focused and useful discussion can follow. You can and should…
List all the ways in which a Zero Aggression society will NOT be perfect
List all the ways in which a Zero Aggression society would be BETTER than the statist society we have now.
Today’s Mental Lever does both things, but in less than 170 words! Check it out…
We’re looking to build a “libertarian society.” The first stage of our plan is to locate 100,000 libertarians to help us spread the Zero Aggression message to a much wider audience. In our most recent count, the new Zero Aggression Project has 1,543 engaging with this material. You can help increase this number and have a large marginal impact in this launching stage simply by…
Clicking the link above. Then, locate the gold box on the page (on your PC, it’ll be on the right; on your phone, it will be down below the comments). Click on the social media icons located there, so that you can share this Mental Lever. Literally, ask people to sign-up! Asking makes a difference.
Forward this email to two friends who are libertarians or libertarian-leaning, encouraging them to join you in subscribing. Literally, ask them to sign-up! Asking is that important!
End all foreign aid, especially to dictators. Please copy or edit the following sample letter for your personal comments…
Oppose the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and all Paris climate accord agreements that will use my tax money or otherwise impose burdens on me. Third world countries were promised billions through the GCF. Many of those countries are dictatorships. No dictator should ever receive a penny of my money, for any purpose.
The GCF is a brazen hold-up of U.S. taxpayers to appease looters and kleptocrats like Robert Mugabe, who has made a hell-hole out of Zimbabwe.
Mugabe loves to blame “global warming” for the collapse of Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector. But Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa prior to Mugabe, and neighboring Botswana continues to do fine with much the same climate. It was Mugabe’s Marxism that destroyed Zimbabwe, NOT climate change.
Mugabe and the other dictators would simply use my tax money to enrich themselves and oppress their people. I will not stand to have my money used this way. You must oppose this. –END OF SAMPLE LETTER–
We’re just a few weeks away from one of the most dreaded days of the year: April 15, Tax Day. Over the past few years discussions around Tax Day have led to a larger conversation of non-filers and/or non-payers of income tax. In the last Presidential election Mitt Romney made headlines with his comments about the so-called “47 percent” – the percentage of Americans who pay no income tax. Some libertarians, specifically Ron Paul, responded to Romney’s complaints that nearly half of all Americans don’t pay income taxes by saying “We’re half way there!”
Even though over half of Americans do provide money to the federal government it is not accurate to say they “pay” taxes. Certainly, you could say people pay taxes though you would also need to say that someone being mugged is paying the mugger.
Some will argue that governments provide services and the taxpayers are simply paying for those services. That, too, is a flawed argument since most of the so-called services are being provided without consideration of whether or not anyone actually wants the service provided by a government. This would be akin to someone mowing your lawn and pruning your hedges, without your prior consent, and then demanding payment. This would rightly be considered a form of extortion, if not outright theft, and no one would rightly claim the homeowner was stealing services if they refused to pay for the unwanted lawn maintenance.
That taxation is theft is not a novel concept. Murray Rothbard wrote that taxation “is thefton a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match.” And in the 1840’s Frederic Bastiat referred to taxation as “legal plunder.” He wrote in The Law, “legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on.”
Bastiat added, “This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.”
As a principled libertarian I seek a society without legal plunder, a society where nobody plunders anybody, because no one other than you has a legitimate claim to the fruits of your labor, and no one other than myself has a legitimate claim to the fruits of my labor. Such a society would be one “of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic.”
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Today the Oklahoma State Election Board announced that the Libertarian Party’s (OKLP) petition submitted on February 22 is valid, allowing candidates to appear on the state’s November ballot as Libertarians. OKLP has not been recognized as an official political organization in the state since 2000.
To become a recognized political party, Libertarians had to complete a massive signature drive. Although Oklahoma lawmakers passed a bill in 2015 to reduce the signature requirement to 24,745, it’s still among the states with the highest ballot-access qualification hurdles.
The Election Board deemed 30,517 of the 42,182 signatures that Libertarians turned in to be valid.
“Thanks to the hard work of the Oklahoma Libertarian Party and the signatures of over 42,000 Oklahomans, every voter in the state will be able to vote this year for a Libertarian, identified with the party label, for the first time in 16 years,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “Every American deserves a Libertarian choice on their ballot, and the Libertarian Party is committed to making sure every American has that choice this election year.”
Oklahoma requires partisan candidates on the November ballot to be registered with their party by March 31, leaving very little time for Libertarians who wish to run in November to change their voter registration. However, the Oklahoma Attorney General and Election Board may extend the deadline to early April because state law allows 15 days for candidates wishing to run in newly recognized political parties to reregister.
First-time voters must register in the Libertarian Party or as independents by June 3 to participate in the June 28th Libertarian primary.
OKLP will field Libertarians for state and federal offices this year, including the party’s presidential and vice-presidential nominees, on the Libertarian ticket.
“Oklahoma Libertarians are excited by the prospect of seeing candidates on the ballot that represent us politically,” said OKLP Vice Chair Tina Kelly. “For the most part we don’t agree with the direction the old parties have been taking our state and our country. This year there will be principled liberty options to cast votes for, and I expect the electorate to be inspired by that and to re-engage in a big way.”
To remain an official political party in Oklahoma, the Libertarian Party must have its presidential candidate receive 10 percent of the vote in the November election. A bill is pending, which has passed in the state senate, to reduce that requirement to 2.5 percent.
Libertarian Party Awards to be presented at the
2016 National LP Convention
The following awards will be presented during the 2016 National LP Convention in Orlando, Florida.
THOMAS JEFFERSON Leadership Award - will be presented to the LP member whose achievements merit our recognition of outstanding leadership, high character, and dedication to the principles and goals of the Party.
PATRICK HENRY Candidate Award – will be presented to the LP member who has been a very effective candidate for public office at the state or federal level, while communicating Libertarian ideas, principles, and values. Nominees can be candidates in 2014 and thereafter.
THOMAS PAINE Communication Award – will be presented to the LP member who has been an outstanding communicator of Libertarian ideas, principles, and values through written, published, or spoken communications.
SAMUEL ADAMS Activism Award – will be presented to the LP member who has been avery effective activist by building Party membership, organizing community outreach, or communicating Libertarian principles.
HALL OF LIBERTY
The Hall of Liberty, established in 2012, honors lifetime or significant achievement that has made a lasting impact on the Libertarian Party and/or libertarian movement. Induction into the Hall of Liberty requires a unanimous vote of the Awards Committee; at most three people can be inducted per national convention.
Send in Your Award Nominations
LP members are welcome to send nominations for these awards to the Awards Committee at Awards@LP.org with supporting documents.
Nominees for the Jefferson, Henry, Paine, and Adams awards must be members of the Libertarian Party (i.e., they have signed the certification).
Nominees for the Hall of Liberty need not be members of the Libertarian Party.
Nominations must be received no later than
5:00 p.m. ET on April 11.
Nominations should include (please be concise):
Nominated for the _____________ Award/Nominated for the Hall of Liberty
Full name of the nominee, address, email and phone contact information, and (where appropriate) years as an LP member. A photo would also be helpful, if possible.
General paragraph describing the nominee and (where appropriate) the nominee’s positions in the Party, how you came to know his or her achievements, etc.
Specific and detailed accomplishments which warrant the Award
Optional: link to a video
Name(s) of people that support this nomination
Anyone that should be considered to assist in the award presentation
Whether you are attending the 2016 national convention
Members of the LP Awards Committee (Tim Hagan, Daniel Hayes, Kevin Knedler, James Lark, Roland Riemers) can be reached via Awards@lp.org.
Your nominations are greatly appreciated.
Awards are named after champions of freedom
Thomas Jefferson was our third President, Governor of Virginia and Secretary of State. The most influential Founder, he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. He favored a limited national government. He negotiated the Louisiana Purchase, directed the Lewis and Clark Expedition and led the development of the University of Virginia.
Patrick Henry was an orator and politician who led the movement for independence. He led the opposition to the Stamp Act and is famous for his “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” speech. He was elected to multiple terms as Governor of Virginia.
Thomas Paine, who came to the colonies from England as an adult, was the author (anonymous) of the powerful and rational pamphlet Common Sense, which advocated independence. It was hugely popular; some 120,000 copies circulated in the colonies. He is remembered for his words about the Revolution: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”
Samuel Adams was a very influential colonist who voiced effective and continuous opposition to the Crown. He urged colonists to defend their rights and freedom. He led town meetings to protest colonial taxes. He won election as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts and later succeeded John Hancock as Governor.
Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee
1444 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
The Society of Libertarian Entrepreneurs (Los Angeles)
Added by Thomas Vincent
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Maple Block Meat Co.
3973 Sepulveda Blvd
Culver City, CA
As usual we will start with brief introductions from everyone about what you do, what skills you have, what philosophical problems you’re thinking about, what you’re promoting and what help you’re looking for. Then we will hang out and talk. This mee… Learn more
CAGW’s 2016 Congressional Pig Book
will make its debut April 13!
It’s the time of year again that Washington politicians dread − the unveiling of CAGW’s Congressional Pig Book!
CAGW’s annual exposé lifts the lid on the pork-barrel earmarks that members of Congress have stuffed in the appropriations bills that fund government operations. The 2016 Pig Book marks the 24th edition and reveals how Congress has continued to circumvent the earmark moratorium established in 2011 in order to waste vital taxpayer dollars on parochial and non-essential pet projects.
Minimum wage: Do results matter, or only intentions? Retweet
If you care about results, then please take action to oppose the minimum wage law. Your action is urgently needed…
Many people are pushing hard to raise the minimum wage to $15. This is having a catastrophic impact on the young and poor in the states and localities that have adopted it. We need to strangle this concept in its crib, because as Harry Browne would’ve observed…
Repeal the minimum wage law. You can copy the letter I sent or edit it to add your personal comments to Congress…
The mandated minimum wage is a job killer for low-skilled and unskilled workers.
Places like Seattle and Los Angeles are already starting to see that hiking the minimum wage kicks these workers in the teeth — and to the curb. http://bit.ly/1THaT6k
Politicians, who ram through higher minimum wages, claim credit for giving workers a nice raise. Meanwhile those who lose hours or their jobs, or are never hired in the first place, become conveniently invisible.
Current election-year agitation to raise the federal minimum wage shows a callous indifference to people who need one thing above all — a job.
The real way to help these people is to repeal minimum wage entirely.
The minimum wage:
* Tells anyone whose current value in the job market is less than some arbitrary government figure, “Tough. Go on unemployment or welfare, or go sell drugs. We don’t care.”
* Brings the axe down on youth entering the job market and on minorities who’ve been failed by shoddy, state schools. The minimum wage has been even been dubbed “The Minority Youth Unemployment Act.” http://on.wsj.com/20aHPW5
* Cuts off the first rung of the ladder for people who need to learn on-the-job skills. Then, they can earn more as their productivity and value to an employer increase.
* Violates freedom of contract by forcibly preventing two people from voluntarily making an employment agreement. Is this really anyone else’s business?
Let’s stop kicking low-skilled workers to the curb! Do NOT raise the minimum wage. Instead, have compassion and repeal it. –END OF SAMPLE LETTER–
The owner of Abacus Wealth Management, Darius Gagne is hosting a fireside chat with Don Watkins and Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute for a talk about their new book “Equal is Unfair” at his office in Santa Monica.
Thursday April 21
429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Space is limited, RSVP to: email@example.com
There are two core elements to the American Dream. One element has to do with our interests: prosperity. The other has to do with our values: fairness. The American Dream is one of equitable prosperity, a climate in which all can fairly prosper through talent, enterprise, and hard work. (The consensus favors a decent social safety net beneath us, something which even the ur-libertarian Hayek supported.)
Both parties agree that the American Dream, if not dead, is in deep hibernation. The economy has been off track for around 15 years. Each party has a profoundly different emphasis on how to re-awaken it.
This election is shaking out very neatly between the parties according to their core DNA. The Republicans, at root the party of capital, have staked out the theme of restoring prosperity as their turf. The Democrats, at root the party of labor, have staked out restoring fairness. Neither is wrong. Both are incomplete. Each of the candidates is proposing somewhat different flavors of how to achieve the goal.
Hillary Clinton presented as the moderate, Bernie Sanders as the radical, and Martin O’Malley as the technocrat. Sanders stole the show with one of the most memorable lines of the night. When asked “how high would you go” in soaking the rich to pay for his expensive new proposed entitlements and federal spending plans, Sanders answered:
We haven’t come up with an exact number yet. But it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90%. … I’m not a socialist compared to Eisenhower.
What Sanders did not mention: “Under Eisenhower’s eight years in office the economy chugged along with an average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent – less than the 4 percent average growth rate during the Truman years.” He did not mention that Kennedy defeated Ike’s vice president, Richard Nixon, by campaigning on the promise to “get America moving again.”
Enter Camelot. JFK proposed a reduction in the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 65%. LBJ delivered 70%. The economy roared, 5.4% under Kennedy, 5% under Johnson. Ike 2.0? Bernie Sanders, call your office!
So Sanders is campaigning not so much against Reagan as against … John F. Kennedy. O’Malley, who hinted at restoration of the 70% rate, cannot possibly get further to the left than Sanders. Nor can he reasonably expect to get closer to the center left than Clinton.
O’Malley is forfeiting a good, and his best, bet to vault himself to the fore. O’Malley has a unique opportunity take ownership of the currently orphaned Kennedy growth wing of his party, with emphasis on “a rising tide lifts all boats.” In short, O’Malley, uniquely, has the opportunity to own both prosperity and fairness. He can do so without undercutting himself with the Democratic base.
The electorate is forward-looking and he easily can reconfigure himself as the “equitable prosperity” candidate rather than merely another flavor of fairness. Maryland is not a swing state and O’Malley thus not an obvious choice for vice president. He has little to lose. One way O’Malley could re-position himself is by taking to heart this observation by the great John Maynard Keynes — a Democratic icon — and taking on the commanding heights of monetary policy. This currently is a hot issue in the GOP race, and generating a strong tailwind for Ted Cruz. It is a sleeper issue that so far has been ignored by the Democrats.
Keynes, in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, wrote:
Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie…
Keynes, of course, was addressing inflation. Inflation is nowhere in evidence and does not appear even on the far horizon.
And yet, bad monetary policy also can manifest, and is manifesting, in secular stagnation. “Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie….”
O’Malley can break powerful new ground by championing high integrity monetary policy. The great progressive Democrat Grover Cleveland rode this issue right into the White House. By tackling the malpractice of the biggest bank in the world — the Federal Reserve — O’Malley even could trump Sanders’ promise to break up the big Wall Street banks.
America has been mired in economic stagnation for almost a generation. This, understandably, inflames a popular desire for redistribution. Sanders, who continues to lag (but might surge) presents an aggressive across-the-board redistributionist agenda. Clinton provides a more moderate one. O’Malley, so far, merely is providing the front runner and challenger an amen corner.
The American Dream demands that our interests, prosperity, and our values, fairness, both be served. As the respective nomination contests move along the Republican candidates with the most credible formula for equitable prosperity — currently Cruz and Rubio, but the fat lady has not yet sung — can be expected to emerge at the forefront.
Comparably, the Democratic candidate with the most credible formula for equitable prosperity, currently Clinton (with less redistribution than Sanders but a recipe less calculated to stultify prosperity), will solidify her lead. Meanwhile if Martin O’Malley stops flirting with recipes for economic stagnation he dramatically could twirl the kaleidoscope of the Democratic race.
A credible promise of equitable prosperity has been, and again could be, game changing. Equitable prosperity is electoral lightning in a bottle.
Feel free to comment to: Comments at DownsizeDC dot org (written-out, not hyperlinked, to prevent bots from harvesting and sending spam to this address). That link is also available at the bottom of the blog post.
Despite the renewal of diplomatic relations between the governments of the US and Cuba, there remains an embargo on, among other things, books and educational materials. There is now a call to lift those specific aspects of the embargo. Nearly 50 CEOs and top executives from the publishing industry submitted a petition on behalf of the publishing industry urging President Obama to “lift the economic embargo against Cuba as it pertains to books and educational materials.” After submitting the industry petition, a second public petition was posted on the White House website.
Publishers Weekly reports, the “call is consistent with the will of the American people, who, according to 2015 Gallup and Pew polls, overwhelmingly support the elimination of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba.” The 2015 polls from Gallup and Pew also revealed overwhelming support for re-establishing diplomatic ties, and the Gallup poll found nearly 6 in 10 Americans support ending the restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba.
Publishers Weekly added, a delegation of approximately 40 American publishing industry representatives traveled to Havana in February to meet with their publishing counterparts in Cuba. The two days of meetings were meant “to build bridges of understanding and explore opportunities for greater cultural and economic collaboration.”
A post on the blog of publishing company Smashwords reads, “Due to the US embargo, it’s extraordinarily expensive and difficult for Cuban publishers to gain access to even the simplest raw materials of bookmaking, such as paper and ink. And for self-published authors, even if they had access to self-publishing services or book printers, the set-up fees of such print services would be prohibitively expensive.” Adding that all 45 publishers in Cuba are “state sponsored and cash-starved – they don’t have access to US markets, or to the services and expertise of the American publishing community.”
It’s not just book publishers and authors who are seeking an end to the embargo against Cuba. In October 2015 the UN General Assembly voted 191-2 to condemn the commercial, economic and financial embargo against Cuba. After the vote The Associated Press reported, “Only Israel joined the United States in opposing the resolution, and when the vote lit up on the screen many diplomats jumped to their feet in a standing ovation.”
Even though UN General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding and unenforceable, the AP adds, the vote “has given Cuba a global stage to demonstrate America’s isolation on the embargo and its Cuba policy.” That vote came nearly a year after the announcement by Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro that the governments of the two nations would be restoring diplomatic ties. So it should not be surprising that President Obama is scheduled to become the first sitting US President to visit Cuba since 1928 when he visits the island nation March 21-22, and is expected to announce plans to ease travel and trade restrictions on Cuba on March 17.
The Smashwords blog adds, “We want President Obama to address the book embargo in his March 17 announcement. With your help, this might be possible.”
While I believe all sanctions and embargoes should be lifted, I also support any action that removes any portion of said sanction or embargo with the ultimate goal of unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
As you may recall, in 2008 the LibertyDollar.org issued the Ron Paul Dollar that was wildly successful and ruled non-counterfeit in my criminal counterfeit case. This gave rise to a group of highly spirited Americans who have created the Trump Dollar to honor Donald J. Trump, the first private citizen to campaign for the US Presidency in over 100 years!
I am pleased to announce that forces way beyond my humble control has created the Trump Dollar. A masterpiece in many ways, the Trump Dollar is the work of many of the finest craftsmen in the country including Wayne Takazono, Hawaii portrait artist; Luigi Badia, national merit sculptor and William LaMere, mintmaster at the North American Mint. I am deeply indebted to them and many more people who have made the Trump Dollar a reality.
I invite you to “Trump the Government”TM with free political speech that is actually worth something! And get a Trump Dollar today!
Fed up with the political class? Fed up with money that loses its value? Show how you feel with the “2016 Trump Dollar” – a silver-dollar size commemorative coin made of one ounce of .999 fine silver!
The “2016 Trump Dollar” expresses the anger of the American people who distrust politicians and the badly broken U.S. political process. A portrait of Donald Trump and the words TRUMP THE GOVERNMENT are featured on the obverse and reinforced with VOTE NON POLITICIAN on the reverse of the commemorative political coin.
Those sentiments are echoed by Forbes magazine editor-in-chief Steve Forbes, himself a two-time presidential candidate, about the current political environment: “What it demonstrates is the intense, deep voter dissatisfaction with where the country is, and fears about the future… so people are looking for an outsider for a fresh perspective.”
The “2016 Trump Dollar” – to commemorate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and give voice to the voters dissatisfaction who are fed up with the political class – is available by pre-order. Shipment of all orders will commence – in the order received – after the First Day of Issue reception on April 27 at the Trump Tower in New York City.
The “2016 Trump Dollar” – a clear call for freedom of political speech and expression of distrust of the entrenched political class – was designed by Bernard von NotHaus, the monetary architect of the Liberty Dollar, to recognize Mr. Trump’s heroic presidential candidacy and popularize it with collectors and sound-money supporters.
The commemorative coin with one full ounce of pure 999 fine silver in Brilliant Uncirculated (BU) condition is available at the MSRP of $25 featured on the reverse. The one-ounce copper BU Trump Dollar is $5. Single Proofs of the Copper and Silver Trump Dollars are also available in addition to a special three coin Gold Proof Dougle Split Piedfort Set – with a $2000 MSRP proof gold, $25 silver and $5 copper – is available for $2450 in an engraved wood presentation case with a numbered Certificate of Authenticity. Additional info and orders may be placed at TrumpDollar.US or call 888.542.3655.
The special “First Day of Issue” of the Trump Dollar – with a hand stamped hallmark on a Brilliant Uncirculated Silver Trump Dollar is available for only $35 by pre-order or at the First Day of Issue Reception at the Trump Tower in New York City on April 27. Please RSVP for $29 at TrumpDollar.US.
5% of all net sales will be donated to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which provides assistance to severely wounded and hospitalized special operations personnel.
Please join me to “Trump the Government” with a non-politician.
Many thanks for your assistance and support of the Liberty Dollar!
With less than two months to go until the Libertarian Party’s National Convention in Orlando, Florida, the race for the Presidential Nomination is in full swing. Several state affiliates have already hosted debates, forums and straw polls, with several more debates scheduled in the weeks leading up to the National Convention.
My campaign continues to gain traction, as illustrated in coming in three votes shy of third place in the straw poll held in Biloxi, Mississippi earlier this year. I have also earned a series of ringing endorsements from past presidential and vice-presidential candidates, as well as former state chairs, including Charles Jay (2004 & 2008 Presidential Candidate), Tom Knapp (2008 VP Candidate), and Steve Scheetz (former Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania State Chair.) I have also amassed a respectable base of volunteers who have been working tirelessly to assist me in my efforts.
Though the mainstream media neglected to include me in the Stossel debate, I have been featured prominently in most of the debates hosted by state affiliates of the Libertarian Party, and will be traveling to Washington D.C. later this week to film a debate for PublicSquare TV on Friday with another Presidential candidate, before attending Vermont’s State Convention the following day.
Throughout April and May, I will be speaking at, or participating in a debate, at the following State Conventions: Vermont (April 1), Florida (April 8), Louisiana (April 15), North Carolina (April 23), New York (April 30), and Maine (May 14); I will also be attending the LP Indiana convention (April 22).
At the National Convention, there will be a pre-nomination presidential debate that will air on CSPAN. In order to participate in this debate, candidates will need to have tokens from at least 10% of the credentialed delegates to the National Convention. Assuming the Convention yields the maximum number of credentialed delegates this year, we will need no less than 104-tokens to participate.
It is critical I achieve this number. As the only standing libertarian candidate that both preaches and practices a truly voluntaryist lifestyle, I yearn for the opportunity to share my principles and platform in a forum that will yield the largest audience, both in person and via satellite. If you, or someone you know, is attending the National Convention as a delegate for their respective State affiliate, please consider casting your token on my behalf. This will be, quite literally, a token sentiment; you are not required to vote for me at the actual Nominating Ceremony. This will merely allow me the opportunity to participate in the debate.
The campaign will be hosting a Craft Beer Party the Friday night of the National Convention. Attendees should consider either bringing a craft beer to share with others, or make a donation of crypto-currency or precious metals. For more information, check out our Facebook event.
In addition to meeting potential delegates at state conventions, I will be sending postcards to many delegates and potential delegates to increase awareness of the campaign. I’d like to do more advertising and outreach and will be able to do so with your help. Please consider a donation to the Darryl W. Perry 2016 Presidential campaign and help spread the ideas of liberty.
In Peace, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
2016 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate
Campaign contributions are being accepted only in crypto-currencies and precious metals.
You can learn more about Bitcoin from Bitcoin.com; easily set-up a wallet on Blockchain.info and purchase bitcoin from BitQuick or LocalBitcoin.
You can donate altcoins using the donate button:
Precious metals can be sent via USPS, UPS or FedEx to:
Darryl W. Perry
63 Emerald St. #369
Keene, NH 03431
It looks increasingly likely that Mr. Trump and Sec. Clinton will be the nominees for the Republican and Democratic Parties.
Neither candidate is a friend to liberty. And freedom-loving Americans everywhere are deeply concerned.
For quite some time, Pew Research Center polls have consistently shown that more Americans identify as “independent” than as Republicans or Democrats.
Now, many Republican primary voters are considering voting for non-Republican candidates in the general election.
A Fox News exit poll shows that over half of Republican primary voters who did not vote for Mr. Trump report interest in voting for a third-party or independent candidate in the general election if Mr. Trump receives the Republican nomination.
Here in the Libertarian Party, we are friends of refugees…those fleeing war torn countries, those fleeing desperate poverty, and also those fleeing despotic candidates such as Mr. Trump and Sec. Clinton.
We welcome former Republicans and Democrats who value “liberty and justice for all” to find a new home in the Libertarian Party.
Libertarianism is the idea that you should be free to make your own decisions in all aspects of your life as long as you don’t infringe upon the rights of others.
Chair Nicholas Sarwark says, “If you are one of the millions of Americans who no longer feel you have a voice in the Republican or Democratic Parties, we welcome you to join us in our fight for the rights of ordinary Americans to be free to raise their families, run their businesses, and pursue happiness in any way that’s peaceful.”
We are an incredibly diverse party, truly representing folks from every walk of life, who genuinely care about the rights of each person. We believe firmly that all rights, of all people, matter all the time. That is a key difference between us and the older parties, each of which is plagued with special interests that undermine the rights of some.
Liberty-loving Republicans and Democrats, we invite you to declare your independence and vote Libertarian in November.
We are looking forward to raising funds and NEED YOUR HELP; we are asking for donations of what ever you come up with – initially we wanted items that represent Palm Beach county, but anything will do – we will be raffling off a basket filled with these donations. We have some wine and a silver coin in the basket so far. Chocolates might be a nice addition to the raffle basket. If you are able to donate or even have a great suggestion, please let us know.
Thank you for your time. We look forward to hearing from you and seeing you at the convention!
Paul Ryan recently, reluctantly, courageously, accepted the Speaker’s gavel in the House of Representatives. The terms on which he agreed to accept this very important post were his own, and dignified. His acceptance speech was impressive, promising to change the culture of the House in fundamental ways. Ryan, at his Kennedyesque best:
I often talk about the need for a vision. I’m not sure I ever said what I meant. We solve problems here—yes. We create a lot of them too. But at bottom, we vindicate a way of life. We show by our work that free people can govern themselves. They can solve their own problems. They can make their own decisions. They can deliberate, collaborate, and get the job done. We show self-government is not only more efficient and more effective; it is more fulfilling. In fact, we show it is that struggle, that hard work, the very achievement itself that makes us free.
Ryan promised the Freedom Caucus, and the Republican Conference, that he would return Congress to regular order and champion free market economic growth. All eyes are on him. Will he follow through?
In one of his first official acts Speaker Ryan convened the House Republican Steering Committee to elect a successor to the critically important chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee. A hot contest ensued for this post. Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) was contesting Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX).
Brady was the more senior, clearly the more conservative (by all the conservative report cards), and as I earlier noted here, was considered by supply-siders as having, as described by PutGrowthFirst’s Rich Lowrie, “the best pro-growth chops in the House” ….
According to Politico, Tiberi, who campaigned in part on being the K Street favorite, “was seen as the favorite going in.”
The Steering Committee selection was conducted by secret ballot and vote totals remain unknown. Ryan has five votes and House Majority [Leader] Kevin McCarthy has two. The other 18 members have one apiece. Several members of the panel said Ryan’s impassioned plea delivered the chairmanship to Brady.
Ryan, thereby, delivered on his commitments to return to regular order and to lean further right than did his predecessor. He also pivoted toward Main Street rather than K Street. Ryan demonstrated his will to lead rather than take the path of least resistance. The Freedom Caucus should find out what he drinks and send him a case.
Most important of all, Ryan followed the example set by his mentor, Jack Kemp, making restoring prosperity his key priority. Ryan earlier had made the promising move of recruiting Rep. Jack Kemp’s very own former chief of staff, Dave Hoppe, as the chief of staff of the Speaker’s office.
To understand better where Ryan is likely to go it is invaluable to understand Kemp (in whose outer circle I was counted back in the day). We are blessed, now, by the recent publication of an excellent biography, Kemp: The Bleeding-Heart Conservative Who Changed America, by two of Washington’s savviest political journalists, the centrist Morton Kondracke and the center-right Fred Barnes.
Kondracke and Barnes followed Kemp closely, as reporters, in his heyday. They were the ideal choice to produce a biography. The biography has been making waves in its own right, with attention across the elite media, from a cover story excerpt in influential conservative Weekly Standard to commentary in The Wall Street Journal, to much more exposure than here can be enumerated. This attention is a tribute both to Kemp and to the book.
Kemp is a biography, and much more. Kemp is history, and much more. Kemp may be one of the best books ever written on the way the world (of Washington) works, rivaled in that category only by George Crile’s masterpiece Charlie Wilson’s War. Kemp is an epic tale, and much more.
Kemp is all of these. Kemp is much more.
Kondracke and Barnes’s Kemp may be the Rosetta Stone to the meaning of a new political era we appear, abruptly, to be entering.
October and November produced a sea change in the Republican narrative and, hence, in Republican Party politics. Along with the ascension of Ryan and Brady the tenor of the Republican presidential race changed. Two formidable stars in the presidential contest, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), visibly are emerging.
At the CNBC presidential debate Cruz put forward the most Kempian economic platform of any of the candidates. He dramatically unveiled a flat tax (authored by Kemp’s own economic guru, Arthur Laffer) and forthrightly stated “We need sound money. And I think the Fed should get out of the business of trying to juice our economy and simply be focused on sound money and monetary stability, ideally tied to gold.” Both of these are torn directly out of the Kemp playbook.
Rubio, accepting the Jack Kemp Leadership Award in 2012, said: “I am so honored to be receiving this award tonight, named after one of the great visionaries of the modern conservative movement in America. We sure could use Jack Kemp right now. Sadly, he is not here, but his ideas and the principles behind them are. And they are useful to us as we confront the great economic challenges and opportunities our nation currently faces.”
Anyone who wishes fully to understand the direction in which the GOP, both in its Congressional and presidential wings, appears headed will find in Kemp the necessary secret decoder ring. Only by understanding Kemp can one understand the emerging political present.
Ever wonder what a Libertarian World would look like?
Ever wonder how to answer objections to creating a Libertarian World?
Ever wonder if a Libertarian World could truly exist?
Here’s the thing: creating a Libertarian World is hard.
It was a lot easier centuries ago. People used to think back then AND they acted on their thoughts. Now-a-days, that does not happen not so much. For lack of a better term, people are lazy.
I used to recommend that folks stand up to their government. However, most people now are under the impression you cannot fight city hall. So, a tyrannical government rises from being the servant to be being the master.
This, of course, is due to a lack of education on what government really needs to be if it exists. Government does NOT want its people educated enough to realize that the citizens are slaves. They want to hide the sheep by allowing them to think they are the wolf because so long as people live in ignorance, they are living in bliss and will not stop someone else from controlling their life.
As I now see it, the problem is that there are thousands, if not million, of people kowtow under peer pressure instead of thinking on their own.
And over the years, the constant lies and new laws forced upon us from via government and its propaganda makes it harder, and harder, and harder, to live as a free person.
The big boys of business and government collude to hide the Master/Slave relationships they’ve developed over years in our society. They hide it all under the guise of “helping” the people and “making a better society”. When, in fact, they are manipulating and controlling the citizenry through deceit.
Learning to recognize the truth on your own, through trial and error, takes LONG time to see and understand. Most books only give you theory. Most of that theory is twisted with arguments. Simple truths are turned on their head and no longer give you a clear image of right and wrong.
If you are just getting into libertarianism, you will want to learn what it is all about fast. You will not want to wait until you are at some meeting somewhere to begin learning and understanding. Clearly, googling things will not suffice because you don’t know what you are really looking for. You want to see practical application NOW in order to make sense of the arguments that will surely come your way.
If that’s the case, you are going to love this:
I have found ONE book, to date, that makes that happen fast for beginners.
Withur We is written in a story format that walks through the steps of how to handle an overbearing government. Including all the trials and tribulations that occur as well as all the steps necessary to set up a Libertarian World, it answers all the naysayer’s questions.
Withur We is written so well that it makes it easy to understand Libertarianism and the problems presented in today’s society.
Matthew Alexander presents the world of Alistair Ashley 3nn in a fashion comparable to Ayn Rand’s John Galt. His work is destined to become a classic among freedom loving individuals like Atlas Shrugged did among business people.
See how Alistair’s world resembles our own. Learn what he does to solve the problems. Understand the frustrations and witness the resolve. Transform your life by living the same principles and stop living as a “slave”.
Withur We is a great Libertarian story that covers the facets of creating a Libertarian society. It is far greater than the single topic visions of authors like L Neil Smith. In the book Alexander’s prose is carefully constructed to lead the reader from one point to the next. Considering that he is a first time author I was amazed at the fluidity of the story and look forward to reading his next book.
Clearly, Alexander took the thinking man’s approach to his story. He starts with the introduction of a Libertarian (anarcho-capitalist) society with a Rothbardian flavor. The story surely is fairer in its presentation than the dialects of “one way only” Libertarian books that exist thus far. There is no utopian world, not everything works out as being perfect as some Libertarians like to present.
As a Libertarian myself, I might wish to see happier results with the situations presented. However, Alexander is showing a world of reality. Not everything is perfect in the world, not even our current societies. He uses those realities to present his theme of market driven economies along with the meaning and inner workings of the non-aggression principle.
I have been waiting a long time for someone to put together a book of this caliber. The wait is over. Now everyone can enjoy a good story that shows both the advantages of a Libertarian society as well as the problems surrounding us in order to create one. It is not a utopia where everyone sings kumbaya to each other. Here, the story revolves around how people interact with each other during times of peace and violence. The contrast between the two is illustrated perfectly with everyday situations that we can recognize in our own society. The conclusion that peace is the better is not shoved in your face by some zealot but is smoothly presented through what can be viewed as real life experiences.
Matthew Alexander did a masterful job of creating the world in terms that everyone can relate too. Now it is your turn to do your part and learn from his efforts. See how a single individual can make a difference. Witness how Libertarianism in action can bring about a whole new concept on life. Learn how to be free.
This brief is another attempt to extend the the victory we had in the U.S. v. (Antoine) Jones case. That ruling restored the original property rights basis of the Fourth Amendment over the long prevailing “right to privacy” standard.
The Birchfield case consolidates cases where state laws criminalize an automobile driver’s refusal to give blood and breath samples as part of a traffic arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously refused to create an “exception” to the Fourth Amendment requirement that the police obtain a warrant before conducting these tests. North Dakota and Minnesota high courts tried to circumvent this requirement by making consent to such tests a pre-condition of having a driver’s license.
Yes, you read that right: These two state supreme courts essentially held that the right to drive an automobile required a waiver of a driver’s constitutional rights.
Minnesota decided that a blood or breath search is simply a “search incident to arrest.” From there, they reasoned that a person has no privacy interest in his or her body once they have been arrested. Therefore, The State has unlimited power to do with him or her whatever it wishes.
North Dakota concluded that by obtaining a driver’s license, a person is deemed to have given “consent” to such searches, and, in any event, the requirement to participate in chemical tests is “reasonable.”
In reviewing these cases the lower courts simply assumed that the only Fourth Amendment issue was whether drivers have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Neither court questioned whether the Fourth Amendment protected a property right — rather than a mere “expectation of privacy” interest.
In other words, both courts failed to account for the Jones decision.
In U.S. v. Jones the Supreme Court restored the Fourth Amendment’s private property “baseline.” The Jones court ruled that a search occurred when police placed a GPS tracking device on a vehicle. It was unnecessary to decide if the owner also had a “privacy” right to protect, because it was clear that the government had committed trespassed on the vehicle owner’s property.
The next year in Florida v. Jardines, the Court applied that same principle to a drug dog search, where the dog was brought to the front door of a home and then detected contraband. They ruled that the resulting search was unreasonable because the police had first trespassed on the homeowner’s property rights.
Alas, the Court has failed to apply these Fourth Amendment property principles consistently. The brief DC Downsizers (perhaps even you) helped us file is an attempt to correct this omission.
P.S. Our unique position in the Jones case prevailed. Few actually recognize the landmark nature of that case. Fourth Amendment cases in need of a property rights argument cross our desk constantly. But our resources are too limited to pursue all the opportunities available. You can help by making a TAX-DEDUCTIBLE contribution to the Downsize DC Foundation, using our secure, Zero Aggression Project contribution form. There are a number of donation options there.
The first 2016 nationally televised presidential debate of Libertarian candidates will be filmed on March 29 and air on Fox Business Network’s Stossel Show April 1 at 9:00pm E.T.
The nation’s third largest political party, Libertarians represent a growing plurality of Americans who are neither “left” nor “right” but who lean libertarian on issues from foreign intervention to marijuana to balancing the federal budget.
“A nationally televised debate of Libertarian presidential candidates is long overdue, and we are delighted that it is finally happening,” said LP Chair, Nicholas Sarwark.
“We urge all Americans to tell their friends, co-workers, and family to watch this important debate and see they have a choice,” he said. “They do not have to settle for candidates who are bigoted and insulting; who curry favor with the titans of Wall Street; who put our troops in harm’s way; who have no intention of stopping runaway government spending; and who force Americans to buy lousy yet unaffordable insurance plans.”
The Libertarian National Committee and Our America Initiative are currently suing the Commission on Presidential Debates for inclusion in debates this fall that are based on reasonable and objective criteria. Specifically, if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states to potentially receive enough electoral votes to win the presidency, he or she should be included.
The Libertarian Party is expected to be on the ballot in most, if not all, 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
“The Commission is a case of insider trading because it is controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties,” said Wes Benedit, LP Executive Director. “They’re scared to have our Libertarian nominee on the stage debating theirs.”
#TSA ignoring both the existing law and a court order. Solution? The Write the Laws ActRetweet
Do you hate the thought of being visually stripped and ogled by strangers watching you on their “porno scanners?” Do you worry about possible radiation from invasive machines? TOUGH! Step in and raise your arms citizen. The same goes for your spouse… your kids… your grandmother.
To make matters worse, the process for federal rulemaking was completely ignored in this instance. Federal agencies are required to do things like publish findings and solicit public comment before imposing a rule. We think that’s constitutionally insufficient (as we’ll explain below). But it is the present law. And even a lawsuit didn’t compel the TSA to follow it.
So what can we do about this? Two things…
First, Downsize DC signed a coalition letter to Congress, led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). This letter instructs the House Oversight Committee to review the TSA’s unlawful decision to mandate whole body scanning for airline passengers. It also asks Congress to suspend funding for whole body scanning until the Oversight review is completed.
Require Congress to approve every rule created by Executive Branch agencies such as the TSA
Prohibit Executive Branch agencies like the TSA from enforcing rules that have not been approved by Congress
In other words, WTLA would restore the Constitutional “separation of powers” between the Executive and Legislative Branches…
Congress could no longer delegate its rule-making power to Executive Branch agencies
Executive Branch agencies could no longer exercise the power to legislate (let alone mandate)
You can copy or edit the following sample letter to Congress…
The TSA is a perfect example of why we need the Write the Laws Act (WTLA). The TSA is, at present, mandating whole-body scanning for airline passengers. It took this action in spite of the fact that a court order prohibited it pending a formal public rule-making procedure. In other words, the TSA has…
* Usurped the Legislative Branch’s rule-making power
* Rebelled against the Judicial Branch’s power to block unlawful government actions
It’s up to you to fix this problem. You can best do that by introducing, co-sponsoring, and passing Downsize DC’s “Write the Laws Act.” It requires all rules that citizens must obey to be written and approved by Congress, with no details left to unelected bureaucrats.
Rand Paul has introduced this bill in the U.S. Senate. I want to see it introduced in the U.S. House, as well.
I look forward to seeing that you have introduced or cosponsored this legislation.
Near the end of February, after five years of civil war, a ceasefire quietly took affect in Syria. However the ceasefire is not meant to stop all fighting in the war-torn country, as the truce will not apply to the battle against The Islamic State (commonly called ISIS) and the al-Nusra Front. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports, “135 [people], including 32 civilians, were killed in 7 days of military operations in the truce areas.”
Despite these deaths within the area covered under the ceasefire, reports indicate that “fighting has slowed in Syria.” With Antiwar.com reporting, “everyone is enjoying the dramatic reduction in violence the ceasefire has provided.
Everyone except the rebels, that is.”
This is because the rebels “resisted international efforts to broker a settlement of the war,” and many rebel factions insisted a ceasefire would not work. Those rebels said they were being betrayed by the US government because the ceasefire would never work, and are now reportedly “blasting the US for ‘betraying’ them by supporting a ceasefire which is working, and is heading toward some settlement short of installing them as the new government.”
The United Nations will be using the ceasefire as a precursor for a new round of peace talks. Reuters reports, “UN envoy Staffan de Mistura said the talks, originally due to begin on Monday in Geneva, would get off to a staggered start later in the week, with delegates arriving from Wednesday onwards.” Adding, “the delay was due to ‘logistical and technical reasons and also for the ceasefire to better settle down’.”
If previous peace talks are any indicator of the manner in which this new round will be handled, don’t expect all parties to actually be involved. During a round of peace talks in January, the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), the political wing of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), wanted “to take part, and interestingly it’s Russia who [wa]s leading the call for them to take part, despite the perception that the YPG [is] primarily a US ally.”Antiwar.com reports “Though they are one of the largest factions in the Syrian Civil War, and hold almost the entire Hasakeh Province, the PYD/YPG were not invited to the talks, on the demand of Turkey, who insists they are terrorists.”
In addition to some parties refusing to allow certain warring factions to negotiate an end to the war, the parties at the previous talks have refused to even be in the same room. Thus far it is not known if the next round of peace talks will be similar “proximity talks” or not. The fact that fighting has slowed, instead of escalated, should be seen as a sign that the war in Syria may be ending. The questions that remain unanswered are:
What happens when the fighting stops. Specifically, will lines be redrawn on the maps, or will the country simply get a new government?
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry