On January 27, 2012, the Governing Board of the Objectivist Party accepted the resignation of Ronald S. Ramo as Treasurer of the Objectivist Party of New York and terminated his membership in the Objectivist Party.
Dallwyn Merck, a member of the Governing Board, commented on these actions as follows:
Two incidents involving "conspicuous displays of ignorance" led to the Governing Board's unanimous acceptance of the resignation of Ron Ramo as OPNY Treasurer. The first was his public statement that he could not attend an event of the Objectivist Party of New York because he would be "in church" at the time. The second was a blast text message he sent out to friends reading, "May the peace and love of God that abides in this Christmas season be with you in the New Year and the rest of your life". Attempts to get assurances such incidences would not occur in the future were unsuccessful.
The Objectivist Party applies no litmus test with respect to who may join the party. Individuals who consider themselves nominally Christian or who have a general belief in God are welcome because the path to Objectivism is a journey and every person must travel it at their own pace. However, when an individual agrees to serve as an officer in one of the affiliates of the Objectivist Party, it sends the wrong message if that person engages in public displays of devotion to supernatural beings and/or belief in superstitions.
As our country rises above faith to embrace science and reason, the Objectivist Party is perfectly situated to lead our nation into a bright new future grounded in enlightened self-interest and purposeful living. Officers in affiliates of the Objectivist Party must reject mysticism and be an inspiration for all who look to the party to be an effective influence on cultural remnants that keep us tied to our past.
The Governing Board of the Objectivist Party appointed Paul A. Palombo, III to serve as the new Treasurer of the Objectivist Party of New York.
Mr. Palombo issued the following statement introducing himself to the members of the Objectivist Party:
I am 34 years old and married and have one child that is almost 3. I grew up in Buffalo, NY and I'd say my family was upper middle class. I went to Catholic School from 4th - 12th grade, mainly because Buffalo City Schools aren't very good. Somewhere during college, I realized I did not believe that Jesus Christ was God. I have made it clear to my wife I will not be endorsing religion. And if my daughter ever asks me questions about God or Jesus, she will get my honest answers. I want her to make her own decisions.
I have a Bachelor's degree from SUNY Brockport and an MBA from Canisius College. I was not very much into politics until about 2006 when I got an XM radio and started listening to conservative talk radio at work. I agreed with their fiscal policies, but not usually with their social policies. For example it has always boggled my mind why prostitution would be illegal.
I heard Atlas Shrugged mentioned on one of those shows and read it. And I loved it. Then I heard about Ron Paul and familiarized myself with Libertarians. I also like Gary Johnson a lot. I wish he would have had more opportunity to debate. I've also read The Fountainhead, Anthem and am currently reading We the Living, which I have to admit is hard to read because it is so depressing. I've also seen the documentary Ayn Rand in her own words. I don't mind talking politics and philosophy with people. I love debating altruists, they never have good answers.
I am a research analyst for a small health insurance company. I do statistical, clinical and trend analysis for our employer groups in an effort to curb their costs.
My reason for joining the Objectivist Party is my belief that the more this philosophy gets into the mainstream, the more people will like it. I'd like to be on the ground floor of this. Our country is drifting into the wrong part of the water and I'd like to try and help steer it back.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
With 3 New Qualifications Added, Sam Sloan Suggests The LP Leadership Should Just Cut The Crap & List Gary Johnson As The Only "Approved" LP Presidential Candidate That Gets To Be Listed At LP.ORG
Before January 24, 2012, Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates needed to meet the following criteria to be listed on the national party's website:
•Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
•Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
•Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
•Campaign website is current with contact information
Carla Howell refused to list Sam Sloan and Mosheh Thezion despite their having met all four conditions. Mr. Sloan received as e-mail from Ms. Howell telling him he needed to meet another unpublished criterion, that being approval from 5 Libertarian National Committee members. Suspecting Ms. Howell just made up the additional condition to keep him off the website, Mr. Sloan demanded she release the names of those LNC members who voted for the listed candidates. In response, the website was updated on January 24, 2012 to add the following criterion:
•Obtained the approval of five members of the Libertarian National Committee. Until February 3, 2012, exception is granted to candidates who met prior approval requirements and were posted at this web site. After this date, all listed candidates must have obtained the approval of five LNC members.
Sam Sloan reported:
I met prior approval requirements and my name was listed at lp.org as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate. Then after my support for the decriminalization of polygamy was published, my name was taken down. I demand my name be re-listed pursuant to the new published rules that say "an exception is granted to candidates who met prior approval requirements and were posted at this web site". Refusal to immediately restore my name to the list will only further expose the fact that the LP Leadership is not neutral as it should be but is in the business of giving certain "approved" candidates with "insider" support an advantage over others seeking the nomination.
The lp.org website also now announces two additional qualifications that will take effect as follows:
•As reported at the web site of the Federal Elections Commission, candidates must have raised and reported donations of a minimum of $2,500 raised through February 29, 2012. Donations may not include those made by candidate or his/her immediately family members.
•As reported at the web site of the Federal Elections Commission, candidates must have raised and reported donations of a minimum of $5,000 raised through March 31, 2012. Donations may not include those made by candidate or his/her immediately family members.
Sam Sloan, an announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, said:
I think it is outrageous that in order to be listed as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate at lp.org, candidates will not only have to be "approved" by "insiders" in the leadership but will also need to spend their time soliciting donations to be considered a serious candidate. I recognize how difficult it is to solicit donations. That is why it has been my intention to finance my own candidacy until I win the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination. At that point, I expect I will be able to raise the funds I need to run a vibrant and active campaign for the Presidency.
I want to spend all my time attending State Affiliate Conventions, participating in debates and seeking the support of potential delegates. If my message resonates with the delegates and I get the Presidential Nomination, raising money will be a lot easier than it would be now. In addition, by financing my own campaign at this point, LP members can be saved from expending funds they may not have. I'd rather they donate that money to whomever is the eventual nominee. That would be a better use of those campaign contributions.
To deny Libertarian Party members the opportunity to see my name on the national LP website and to visit my website and read my platform takes away vital information the membership and delegates need to make up their own minds about who to support. Shortcutting that process by establishing these new barriers to being listed helps those candidates who have the support of those in the leadership. In this case, I suspect that person is Gary Johnson. I'd like to believe that a pure, ideological libertarian like myself has a chance to snatch the nomination away from yet another former Republican Party elected official and, in this case, a bitter Johnson-come-lately who only came to the Libertarian Party because he himself was frozen out of the Republican Presidential Debates due to another list of criteria he could not meet. I do not want to be frozen out.
I am not ashamed to proudly proclaim my Libertarian Philosophy. Dr. Tom Stevens, former LPUS Judicial Committee Member 2006-2010, has often told me, "We must never compromise our Libertarian Principles for short-term popularity. We must never be embarrassed about promoting Libertarian Perspectives on Public Policy Issues. We must never water down our message or people won't know what we stand for". I am in complete agreement with him.
•Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
•Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
•Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
•Campaign website is current with contact information
Carla Howell refused to list Sam Sloan and Mosheh Thezion despite their having met all four conditions. Mr. Sloan received as e-mail from Ms. Howell telling him he needed to meet another unpublished criterion, that being approval from 5 Libertarian National Committee members. Suspecting Ms. Howell just made up the additional condition to keep him off the website, Mr. Sloan demanded she release the names of those LNC members who voted for the listed candidates. In response, the website was updated on January 24, 2012 to add the following criterion:
•Obtained the approval of five members of the Libertarian National Committee. Until February 3, 2012, exception is granted to candidates who met prior approval requirements and were posted at this web site. After this date, all listed candidates must have obtained the approval of five LNC members.
Sam Sloan reported:
I met prior approval requirements and my name was listed at lp.org as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate. Then after my support for the decriminalization of polygamy was published, my name was taken down. I demand my name be re-listed pursuant to the new published rules that say "an exception is granted to candidates who met prior approval requirements and were posted at this web site". Refusal to immediately restore my name to the list will only further expose the fact that the LP Leadership is not neutral as it should be but is in the business of giving certain "approved" candidates with "insider" support an advantage over others seeking the nomination.
The lp.org website also now announces two additional qualifications that will take effect as follows:
•As reported at the web site of the Federal Elections Commission, candidates must have raised and reported donations of a minimum of $2,500 raised through February 29, 2012. Donations may not include those made by candidate or his/her immediately family members.
•As reported at the web site of the Federal Elections Commission, candidates must have raised and reported donations of a minimum of $5,000 raised through March 31, 2012. Donations may not include those made by candidate or his/her immediately family members.
Sam Sloan, an announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, said:
I think it is outrageous that in order to be listed as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate at lp.org, candidates will not only have to be "approved" by "insiders" in the leadership but will also need to spend their time soliciting donations to be considered a serious candidate. I recognize how difficult it is to solicit donations. That is why it has been my intention to finance my own candidacy until I win the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination. At that point, I expect I will be able to raise the funds I need to run a vibrant and active campaign for the Presidency.
I want to spend all my time attending State Affiliate Conventions, participating in debates and seeking the support of potential delegates. If my message resonates with the delegates and I get the Presidential Nomination, raising money will be a lot easier than it would be now. In addition, by financing my own campaign at this point, LP members can be saved from expending funds they may not have. I'd rather they donate that money to whomever is the eventual nominee. That would be a better use of those campaign contributions.
To deny Libertarian Party members the opportunity to see my name on the national LP website and to visit my website and read my platform takes away vital information the membership and delegates need to make up their own minds about who to support. Shortcutting that process by establishing these new barriers to being listed helps those candidates who have the support of those in the leadership. In this case, I suspect that person is Gary Johnson. I'd like to believe that a pure, ideological libertarian like myself has a chance to snatch the nomination away from yet another former Republican Party elected official and, in this case, a bitter Johnson-come-lately who only came to the Libertarian Party because he himself was frozen out of the Republican Presidential Debates due to another list of criteria he could not meet. I do not want to be frozen out.
I am not ashamed to proudly proclaim my Libertarian Philosophy. Dr. Tom Stevens, former LPUS Judicial Committee Member 2006-2010, has often told me, "We must never compromise our Libertarian Principles for short-term popularity. We must never be embarrassed about promoting Libertarian Perspectives on Public Policy Issues. We must never water down our message or people won't know what we stand for". I am in complete agreement with him.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Mark Hinkle Tells Jim Burns The Libertarian National Committee Passed The New Rules With Respect To The Listing Of LP Presidential Candidates On LP.ORG
Jim Burns, an announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, reports he personally spoke with Mark Hinkle, Chair of the Libertarian Party, who told him the Libertarian National Committee was directly responsible for the passing of the new rules regarding which announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates could be listed at lp.org. The reason offered by Mr. Hinkle for the adoption of the new rules was to keep "kooks and non-serious people from being associated with the LP". Mr. Hinkle also told Jim Burns that he has been the only person "who asked about this issue or showed any concern".
Jim Burns' full report was:
Mr. Hinkle, National Chairman of the Libertarian Party (LP), informed me, because I asked him, who was responsible for the change in the rules for listing the names and links, on the Website of the LP, of those seeking the LP nomination for president. The new rules removed about half of the names that were there before the new rules. See: http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2012-libertarian-presidential-candidates
Mr. Hinkle told me that it was the National Committee that passed the new rules. He told me that the reason was to keep the kooks and non-serious people from being associated with the LP: the same reasoning used by the establishment to keep Libertarian candidates out of the debate and contest.
If the committee was concerned about association with kooks, they solved that problem with the disclaimer: http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2012-libertarian-presidential-candidates
It seems to me that those who voted for this measure must believe and act as if they were elected to Congress not to office in the Libertarian Party. Just as Congress almost always over reaches, so too it is with committees even those that call themselves libertarian. This rule will harm those who want to know more about people seeking the LP nomination, discriminates against the poor, and implies support and gives credence and collaboration to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and adds requirements that even the FEC does not have.
Libertarians not only believe in free markets but also free minds. Information is necessary for rational choice and having more people on that page gives to members and interested parties more information at no extra cost to the LP. Artificial and arbitrary restrictions harm and give the appearance that the LP has something to hide, the appearance of tyrants.
The requirement to be a dues-paying member in the national LP discriminates against the poor, violates the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and violates the libertarian principle of equal rights under the law.
The FEC is the enemy!!! The authority for the FEC was unconstitutionally given by congress and the president to form an organization that writes their own rules which are enforced with guns and are designed to keep the incumbents in power. The LP giving aid and comfort to the FEC is repugnant and an abomination: shame. It should be pointed out that this idea was advocated and defeated at the 2008 LP convention. To learn some of the reasons why I have not filed with the FEC take about one minute and read: http://jimburnsforpresident.com/joomla/index.php/pledge-support
Some in the LP believe that because the LP is a private voluntary organization the LP members and officers are not subject to the ideals of libertarianism when acting on behalf of the LP. They are incorrect. Libertarianism opposes fraud. If anyone acts in an anti-libertarian manner while acting in the name of the LP, they commit fraud.
You may e-mail the officers of the LP and ask them about this matter. Mr. Hinkle informed me that I was the only person who asked about this issue or showed any concern. If you wish to make a difference you may contact the members of the National Committee of the LP listed below:
Mark Hinkle, chair@lp.org
Mark Rutherford, vicechair@lp.org
Alicia Mattson, secretary@lp.org
William Redpath, treasurer@lp.org
Randy Eshelman, Randy.Eshelman@lp.org
Kevin Knedler, Kevin.Knedler@lp.org
Wayne Allyn Root, Wayne.Root@lp.org
Mary Ruwart, Mary.Ruwart@lp.org
Rebecca Sink-Burris, Rebecca.Sink-Burris@lp.org
Doug Craig, Doug.Craig@lp.org
Stewart Flood, Stewart.Flood@lp.org
Daniel Wiener, Daniel.Wiener@lp.org
Scott Lieberman, Scott.Lieberman@lp.org
Guy McLendon, Guy.McLendon@lp.org
Brad Ploeger, Brad.Ploeger@lp.org
Vicki Kirkland, Vicki.Kirkland@lp.org
David Blau, David.Blau@lp.org
Andy Wolf, Andrew.Wolf@lp.org
Sam Goldstein, Sam.Goldstein@lp.org
Norman Olsen, Norman.Olsen@lp.org
Brett H. Pojunis, Brett.Pojunis@lp.org
Dr. James W. Lark, III, James.Lark@lp.org
Marakay Rogers, Marakay.Rogers@lp.org
Daniel Karlan, Daniel.Karlan@lp.org
Audrey Capozzi, Audrey.Capozzi@lp.org
Dianna Visek, Dianna.Visek@lp.org
Jim Burns' full report was:
Mr. Hinkle, National Chairman of the Libertarian Party (LP), informed me, because I asked him, who was responsible for the change in the rules for listing the names and links, on the Website of the LP, of those seeking the LP nomination for president. The new rules removed about half of the names that were there before the new rules. See: http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2012-libertarian-presidential-candidates
Mr. Hinkle told me that it was the National Committee that passed the new rules. He told me that the reason was to keep the kooks and non-serious people from being associated with the LP: the same reasoning used by the establishment to keep Libertarian candidates out of the debate and contest.
If the committee was concerned about association with kooks, they solved that problem with the disclaimer: http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2012-libertarian-presidential-candidates
It seems to me that those who voted for this measure must believe and act as if they were elected to Congress not to office in the Libertarian Party. Just as Congress almost always over reaches, so too it is with committees even those that call themselves libertarian. This rule will harm those who want to know more about people seeking the LP nomination, discriminates against the poor, and implies support and gives credence and collaboration to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and adds requirements that even the FEC does not have.
Libertarians not only believe in free markets but also free minds. Information is necessary for rational choice and having more people on that page gives to members and interested parties more information at no extra cost to the LP. Artificial and arbitrary restrictions harm and give the appearance that the LP has something to hide, the appearance of tyrants.
The requirement to be a dues-paying member in the national LP discriminates against the poor, violates the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and violates the libertarian principle of equal rights under the law.
The FEC is the enemy!!! The authority for the FEC was unconstitutionally given by congress and the president to form an organization that writes their own rules which are enforced with guns and are designed to keep the incumbents in power. The LP giving aid and comfort to the FEC is repugnant and an abomination: shame. It should be pointed out that this idea was advocated and defeated at the 2008 LP convention. To learn some of the reasons why I have not filed with the FEC take about one minute and read: http://jimburnsforpresident.com/joomla/index.php/pledge-support
Some in the LP believe that because the LP is a private voluntary organization the LP members and officers are not subject to the ideals of libertarianism when acting on behalf of the LP. They are incorrect. Libertarianism opposes fraud. If anyone acts in an anti-libertarian manner while acting in the name of the LP, they commit fraud.
You may e-mail the officers of the LP and ask them about this matter. Mr. Hinkle informed me that I was the only person who asked about this issue or showed any concern. If you wish to make a difference you may contact the members of the National Committee of the LP listed below:
Mark Hinkle, chair@lp.org
Mark Rutherford, vicechair@lp.org
Alicia Mattson, secretary@lp.org
William Redpath, treasurer@lp.org
Randy Eshelman, Randy.Eshelman@lp.org
Kevin Knedler, Kevin.Knedler@lp.org
Wayne Allyn Root, Wayne.Root@lp.org
Mary Ruwart, Mary.Ruwart@lp.org
Rebecca Sink-Burris, Rebecca.Sink-Burris@lp.org
Doug Craig, Doug.Craig@lp.org
Stewart Flood, Stewart.Flood@lp.org
Daniel Wiener, Daniel.Wiener@lp.org
Scott Lieberman, Scott.Lieberman@lp.org
Guy McLendon, Guy.McLendon@lp.org
Brad Ploeger, Brad.Ploeger@lp.org
Vicki Kirkland, Vicki.Kirkland@lp.org
David Blau, David.Blau@lp.org
Andy Wolf, Andrew.Wolf@lp.org
Sam Goldstein, Sam.Goldstein@lp.org
Norman Olsen, Norman.Olsen@lp.org
Brett H. Pojunis, Brett.Pojunis@lp.org
Dr. James W. Lark, III, James.Lark@lp.org
Marakay Rogers, Marakay.Rogers@lp.org
Daniel Karlan, Daniel.Karlan@lp.org
Audrey Capozzi, Audrey.Capozzi@lp.org
Dianna Visek, Dianna.Visek@lp.org
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Sam Sloan Demands Carla Howell Release The Names Of The 5 Libertarian National Committee Members Who Voted In Favor Of Listing Each Of The Other LP Presidential Candidates At LP.ORG
Sam Sloan, an announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, who met all the published criteria for being listed on the national party's website at lp.org, was told by Carla Howell, LP Executive Director, on January 24, 2012 that "all presidential candidates must obtain the approval of at least five LNC members to be listed at the lp.org web site".
Currently, the following six candidates are listed as 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates at lp.org:
Roger Gary
R.J. Harris
Gary Johnson
Carl Person
Bill Still
Lee Wrights
Sam Sloan has demanded Carla Howell "release the names of the Libertarian National Committee members who voted for the listing of each of the presidential candidates, the dates on which said votes were cast and proof of the manner in which said votes were cast".
Sam Sloan added:
I have observed such chicanery before where officials in power abuse their authority, ignore bylaw provisions, or outright lie to obtain a result they seek, no matter what means they need to employ to bring about their desired goal. It reminds me of a story I heard about Jim Davidson, who when Chair of the Boston Tea Party, closed the voting on an important motion early by unilaterally announcing he was shifting the time zone from Eastern to Atlantic so as to prevent some National Committee members from casting a vote in a manner not acceptable to him. That particular abuse of power resulted in all the members of four chartered chapters resigning en masse.
This situation is not very different. I met all the criteria for being listed as a 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and simply because some in the party might not want me listed (and I believe I know who they are), a new barrier was announced to justify my exclusion. Let me be clear. I do not believe the other listed candidates were formally approved in the manner described by Carla Howell. To quote George Phillies of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party, "She has made up a new criterion, one which she is not applying to other candidates".
It is my belief that all Libertarian Party members seeking the Presidential Nomination should be listed on the national website. If they wish to require some objective criteria such as that a candidate be a member of the national LP or have a website with contact information, that is reasonable. However, when the LP starts to take sides in the contest and only lists candidates with "insider" support, they deny Libertarian Party members the opportunity to get the information they need to decide who to support. As for who should be allowed to participate in Presidential Debates at the upcoming Libertarian Party National Convention, I would again set the bar low, perhaps allowing all candidates to participate in an initial debate followed by a requirement that a candidate get 20 delegates to support their candidacy before being permitted to participate in future debates.
This whole issue is one of philosophy. If you believe in top down control where your Libertarian National Committee members are the guardians of promoting a particular, purified, public imagine, then you have the result. If you support, as I do, an open process, maximum participation, principled positions on issues and bottom-up activism, then I am your man.
Currently, the following six candidates are listed as 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates at lp.org:
Roger Gary
R.J. Harris
Gary Johnson
Carl Person
Bill Still
Lee Wrights
Sam Sloan has demanded Carla Howell "release the names of the Libertarian National Committee members who voted for the listing of each of the presidential candidates, the dates on which said votes were cast and proof of the manner in which said votes were cast".
Sam Sloan added:
I have observed such chicanery before where officials in power abuse their authority, ignore bylaw provisions, or outright lie to obtain a result they seek, no matter what means they need to employ to bring about their desired goal. It reminds me of a story I heard about Jim Davidson, who when Chair of the Boston Tea Party, closed the voting on an important motion early by unilaterally announcing he was shifting the time zone from Eastern to Atlantic so as to prevent some National Committee members from casting a vote in a manner not acceptable to him. That particular abuse of power resulted in all the members of four chartered chapters resigning en masse.
This situation is not very different. I met all the criteria for being listed as a 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and simply because some in the party might not want me listed (and I believe I know who they are), a new barrier was announced to justify my exclusion. Let me be clear. I do not believe the other listed candidates were formally approved in the manner described by Carla Howell. To quote George Phillies of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party, "She has made up a new criterion, one which she is not applying to other candidates".
It is my belief that all Libertarian Party members seeking the Presidential Nomination should be listed on the national website. If they wish to require some objective criteria such as that a candidate be a member of the national LP or have a website with contact information, that is reasonable. However, when the LP starts to take sides in the contest and only lists candidates with "insider" support, they deny Libertarian Party members the opportunity to get the information they need to decide who to support. As for who should be allowed to participate in Presidential Debates at the upcoming Libertarian Party National Convention, I would again set the bar low, perhaps allowing all candidates to participate in an initial debate followed by a requirement that a candidate get 20 delegates to support their candidacy before being permitted to participate in future debates.
This whole issue is one of philosophy. If you believe in top down control where your Libertarian National Committee members are the guardians of promoting a particular, purified, public imagine, then you have the result. If you support, as I do, an open process, maximum participation, principled positions on issues and bottom-up activism, then I am your man.
Carla Howell, LP Executive Director, Tells Sam Sloan All Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates Now Need The Approval Of 5 LNC Members To Be Listed At LP.ORG
There are four published criteria for declared Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates to be listed on the national party's website at lp.org. These are:
•Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
•Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
•Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
•Campaign website is current with contact information
Sam Sloan, a declared Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate who was runner-up for the New York State Libertarian Party's Gubernatorial Nomination in 2010, has met all four conditions and is still not listed at lp.org. Mr. Sloan filed FEC Form 1 and FEC Form 2 to run for President with his party affiliation being Libertarian. He is seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively. He has been a dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party and has been registered to vote as a Libertarian Party member in California for over six years. Finally, he has a campaign website with current contact information.
This information was forwarded to national and after two days passing without his being listed as a Presidential Candidate, Mr. Sloan wrote them an e-mail in which he said:
I am still not listed as a Libertarian Party Candidate for President on the lp.org website.
Kindly explain why I am not listed?
On January 24, 2012, Carla Howell, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, wrote Mr. Sloan back with an explanation, which included new hurdles that have been established to keep only "acceptable" candidates listed on the website. Ms. Howell wrote:
All presidential candidates must obtain the approval of at least five LNC members to be listed at the lp.org web site. I will forward your request to them today to inform them that you are seeking such approval.
If and when we receive five approvals, we will immediately post your name at our web site.
Thank you for your interest.
Sam Sloan was contacted for his reaction to this new listing barrier. He said:
The Libertarian National Committee has an obligation to be neutral when it comes to party members seeking the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination. It is fine for the webmaster to put up a disclaimer saying the views of the various candidates do not necessarily reflect the views of the party but it is totally inappropriate to list only those candidates who five LNC members believe should be listed. If the LNC unites around Gary Johnson, would it be appropriate to only list his name on the website? Of course not!
It is the delegates who decide who should receive the nomination of the Libertarian Party. All candidates should have the opportunity to be listed on the national party's website so all Libertarian Party members can read their various positions on the issues and decide for themselves who to support. The LP should not be in the business of only listing "approved" candidates or those with "insider" support.
The Libertarian Party loses the moral high ground when they continue to seek to exclude candidates they don't like. The LNC first set objective criteria and when I met all their conditions for being listed, they then set up a new subjective barrier no candidate can possibly meet. How will LNC members decide whether I should be listed? Will it be based on my ideological purity? Will it be based on whether I might be an embarrassment to the LP because I support decriminalizing polygamy? Will I not be listed because some think Muslims can't be Libertarians or because I sued the New York State Libertarian Party for the serious improprieties I observed during the 2010 gubernatorial nominating process?
Well, you get my point. The front runner for the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination is Gary Johnson, someone who was excluded from the Republican Presidential Debates for not meeting certain standards and now the Libertarian Party seeks to exclude legitimate, announced candidates for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination and to deny them a fair chance to reach LP members. I have also just learned that many state affiliates intend to exclude from upcoming Libertarian Presidential Debates those candidates not listed at lp.org. This is a great injustice to all Libertarian Party members.
•Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
•Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
•Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
•Campaign website is current with contact information
Sam Sloan, a declared Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate who was runner-up for the New York State Libertarian Party's Gubernatorial Nomination in 2010, has met all four conditions and is still not listed at lp.org. Mr. Sloan filed FEC Form 1 and FEC Form 2 to run for President with his party affiliation being Libertarian. He is seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively. He has been a dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party and has been registered to vote as a Libertarian Party member in California for over six years. Finally, he has a campaign website with current contact information.
This information was forwarded to national and after two days passing without his being listed as a Presidential Candidate, Mr. Sloan wrote them an e-mail in which he said:
I am still not listed as a Libertarian Party Candidate for President on the lp.org website.
Kindly explain why I am not listed?
On January 24, 2012, Carla Howell, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, wrote Mr. Sloan back with an explanation, which included new hurdles that have been established to keep only "acceptable" candidates listed on the website. Ms. Howell wrote:
All presidential candidates must obtain the approval of at least five LNC members to be listed at the lp.org web site. I will forward your request to them today to inform them that you are seeking such approval.
If and when we receive five approvals, we will immediately post your name at our web site.
Thank you for your interest.
Sam Sloan was contacted for his reaction to this new listing barrier. He said:
The Libertarian National Committee has an obligation to be neutral when it comes to party members seeking the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination. It is fine for the webmaster to put up a disclaimer saying the views of the various candidates do not necessarily reflect the views of the party but it is totally inappropriate to list only those candidates who five LNC members believe should be listed. If the LNC unites around Gary Johnson, would it be appropriate to only list his name on the website? Of course not!
It is the delegates who decide who should receive the nomination of the Libertarian Party. All candidates should have the opportunity to be listed on the national party's website so all Libertarian Party members can read their various positions on the issues and decide for themselves who to support. The LP should not be in the business of only listing "approved" candidates or those with "insider" support.
The Libertarian Party loses the moral high ground when they continue to seek to exclude candidates they don't like. The LNC first set objective criteria and when I met all their conditions for being listed, they then set up a new subjective barrier no candidate can possibly meet. How will LNC members decide whether I should be listed? Will it be based on my ideological purity? Will it be based on whether I might be an embarrassment to the LP because I support decriminalizing polygamy? Will I not be listed because some think Muslims can't be Libertarians or because I sued the New York State Libertarian Party for the serious improprieties I observed during the 2010 gubernatorial nominating process?
Well, you get my point. The front runner for the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination is Gary Johnson, someone who was excluded from the Republican Presidential Debates for not meeting certain standards and now the Libertarian Party seeks to exclude legitimate, announced candidates for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination and to deny them a fair chance to reach LP members. I have also just learned that many state affiliates intend to exclude from upcoming Libertarian Presidential Debates those candidates not listed at lp.org. This is a great injustice to all Libertarian Party members.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Gary Johnson Trounces Harris, Person & Still In Manhattan Libertarian Party Presidential Straw Poll
On Saturday, January 21, 2012, the Manhattan Libertarian Party held its Annual Convention during which a Presidential Candidate Forum & Straw Poll was held. Gary Johnson, R.J. Harris, Carl Person and Bill Still were the featured Presidential Candidates. Sam Sloan, an announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate who previously served as Media Director and State Representative for the Manhattan Libertarian Party, was denied the opportunity to participate and was told not to purchase a plane ticket from California, where he currently resides. 53 people voted in the Presidential Straw Poll.
The results were the following:
Gary Johnson - 35 votes (66%)
R.J. Harris - 11 votes (20.8%)
Carl Person - 5 votes (9.4%)
Mary Ruwart (Write-In) - 1 vote (1.9%)
Ron Paul (Write-In) - 1 vote (1.9%)
Bill Still - 0 votes (0%)
Dallwyn Merck, Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Queens County, who attended the Manhattan LP Annual Convention reported the above results and commented as follows:
This was a significant victory for Governor Gary Johnson and the very first test of his strength amongst rank-and-file Libertarian Party members who are likely to be delegates to the Libertarian Party's National Convention scheduled to be held May 4-6, 2012 at the Red Rock Casino, Hotel and Spa in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Libertarian Party of Queens County became the first chartered chapter in the New York Libertarian Party to have endorsed Gary Johnson. We are very pleased with the results of the Straw Poll.
R.J. Harris came in with the support of Gigi Bowman, the Suffolk County Libertarian Party Vice-Chair & State Representative, who rallied support for Mr. Harris at a special reception/fundraiser held at her house the night before so it is not surprising a contingent of supporters showed up to give him a second place finish.
The big loser of the evening was Carl Person. Mr Person's Law Office/Campaign Headquarters are located within a mile of where the Presidential Candidate Forum was held. In addition, he went in with the support of Mark Axinn, the Chair of the New York State Libertarian Party who is also Secretary/Treasurer of the Manhattan LP. Given that geographic advantage and the fact that the only qualification to vote was the purchase of a ticket, Mr. Person still was unable to garner more than 5 votes, which presumably included his own and Mr. Axinn's.
Bill Still's message failed to resonate with convention attendees and he received no votes at all.
The Manhattan Libertarian Party's Annual Convention was held at the Ukrainian East Village Restaurant located at 140 2nd Avenue in Manhattan (New York County), New York.
The results were the following:
Gary Johnson - 35 votes (66%)
R.J. Harris - 11 votes (20.8%)
Carl Person - 5 votes (9.4%)
Mary Ruwart (Write-In) - 1 vote (1.9%)
Ron Paul (Write-In) - 1 vote (1.9%)
Bill Still - 0 votes (0%)
Dallwyn Merck, Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Queens County, who attended the Manhattan LP Annual Convention reported the above results and commented as follows:
This was a significant victory for Governor Gary Johnson and the very first test of his strength amongst rank-and-file Libertarian Party members who are likely to be delegates to the Libertarian Party's National Convention scheduled to be held May 4-6, 2012 at the Red Rock Casino, Hotel and Spa in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Libertarian Party of Queens County became the first chartered chapter in the New York Libertarian Party to have endorsed Gary Johnson. We are very pleased with the results of the Straw Poll.
R.J. Harris came in with the support of Gigi Bowman, the Suffolk County Libertarian Party Vice-Chair & State Representative, who rallied support for Mr. Harris at a special reception/fundraiser held at her house the night before so it is not surprising a contingent of supporters showed up to give him a second place finish.
The big loser of the evening was Carl Person. Mr Person's Law Office/Campaign Headquarters are located within a mile of where the Presidential Candidate Forum was held. In addition, he went in with the support of Mark Axinn, the Chair of the New York State Libertarian Party who is also Secretary/Treasurer of the Manhattan LP. Given that geographic advantage and the fact that the only qualification to vote was the purchase of a ticket, Mr. Person still was unable to garner more than 5 votes, which presumably included his own and Mr. Axinn's.
Bill Still's message failed to resonate with convention attendees and he received no votes at all.
The Manhattan Libertarian Party's Annual Convention was held at the Ukrainian East Village Restaurant located at 140 2nd Avenue in Manhattan (New York County), New York.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
New Policy Regarding Listing Of 2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidates At LP.ORG Cause Some Candidates To Be De-Listed
Effective immediately, a new policy has been put in place to determine which announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates can be listed on the national Libertarian Party's website at lp.org.
The four criteria a Libertarian Presidential Candidate must meet are the following:
•Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
•Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
•Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
•Campaign website is current with contact information
The six candidates who currently meet that criteria are:
* Roger Gary
* R.J. Harris
* Gary Johnson
* Carl Person
* Bill Still
* Lee Wrights
Sam Sloan and Mosheh Thezion's F.E.C. filings are not visible due to a week's delay in the F.E.C. processing submissions and in the case of Thezion, according to Robert Kraus at LP National Headquarters, he still has "a picture of an elephant" on his website. Other announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates who had their names removed were Jim Burns, Miss Joy Waymire, James Ogle, Robert Milnes and Dave Redick.
Mr. Kraus assured me all declared candidates for the Libertarian Presidential Nomination who meet the above stated criteria will be listed as candidates at lp.org
The four criteria a Libertarian Presidential Candidate must meet are the following:
•Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
•Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
•Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
•Campaign website is current with contact information
The six candidates who currently meet that criteria are:
* Roger Gary
* R.J. Harris
* Gary Johnson
* Carl Person
* Bill Still
* Lee Wrights
Sam Sloan and Mosheh Thezion's F.E.C. filings are not visible due to a week's delay in the F.E.C. processing submissions and in the case of Thezion, according to Robert Kraus at LP National Headquarters, he still has "a picture of an elephant" on his website. Other announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates who had their names removed were Jim Burns, Miss Joy Waymire, James Ogle, Robert Milnes and Dave Redick.
Mr. Kraus assured me all declared candidates for the Libertarian Presidential Nomination who meet the above stated criteria will be listed as candidates at lp.org
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
LPQC Elects New Officers At Annual Convention
The Annual Convention of the Libertarian Party of Queens County was held on Saturday, January 14, 2012 at Bohemian Hall at 29-19 24th Avenue in Astoria, New York.
The following officers were unanimously elected at the LPQC Convention to serve during the remainder of 2012 and until the next Annual Convention is held:
Chair - John Clifton
Vice-Chair - John Procida
Secretary - Dallwyn Merck
Treasurer - Ronald S. Ramo
Membership Director - Dr. Tom Stevens
State Representative - Dr. Tom Stevens
Congratulations to all who were elected!
The following officers were unanimously elected at the LPQC Convention to serve during the remainder of 2012 and until the next Annual Convention is held:
Chair - John Clifton
Vice-Chair - John Procida
Secretary - Dallwyn Merck
Treasurer - Ronald S. Ramo
Membership Director - Dr. Tom Stevens
State Representative - Dr. Tom Stevens
Congratulations to all who were elected!
Dr. Tom Stevens Elected To Serve As LPQC State Representative To The New York Libertarian Party
At the Annual Convention of the Libertarian Party of Queens County held on Saturday, January 14, 2012 at Bohemian Hall in Astoria, New York, Dr. Tom Stevens was unanimously re-elected to serve as the LPQC State Representative to the New York Libertarian Party.
Dr. Stevens served as LPQC State Representative from April 24, 2004 to June 27, 2010, when he resigned his Life Membership in the New York Libertarian Party. John Clifton then served as LPQC State Representative from June 27, 2010 through November 13, 2010 followed by Carl Person, who served from November 13, 2010 to January 8, 2011. At the LPQC Annual Convention held on January 8, 2011, Dr. Tom Stevens was again unanimously elected by the delegates in attendance to serve as LPQC State Representative to the New York Libertarian Party..
Because of ongoing political battles within the New York Libertarian Party, Dr. Stevens will not be able to vote on the State Committee. However, the Libertarian Party of Queens County continues to protest the lack of due process that led to the current impasse and has formally taken the position that Dr. Stevens should be recognized as a voting member of the NYLP's State Committee.
This is the second time attacks on the Libertarian Party of Queens County have prevented its State Representative from voting on the NYLP State Committee. The first such instance occurred from December 3, 2006 when the State Committee de-chartered the LPQC to April 28, 2007 when the delegates in attendance at the 2007 NYLP Annual State Convention re-chartered it.
Dr. Stevens served as LPQC State Representative from April 24, 2004 to June 27, 2010, when he resigned his Life Membership in the New York Libertarian Party. John Clifton then served as LPQC State Representative from June 27, 2010 through November 13, 2010 followed by Carl Person, who served from November 13, 2010 to January 8, 2011. At the LPQC Annual Convention held on January 8, 2011, Dr. Tom Stevens was again unanimously elected by the delegates in attendance to serve as LPQC State Representative to the New York Libertarian Party..
Because of ongoing political battles within the New York Libertarian Party, Dr. Stevens will not be able to vote on the State Committee. However, the Libertarian Party of Queens County continues to protest the lack of due process that led to the current impasse and has formally taken the position that Dr. Stevens should be recognized as a voting member of the NYLP's State Committee.
This is the second time attacks on the Libertarian Party of Queens County have prevented its State Representative from voting on the NYLP State Committee. The first such instance occurred from December 3, 2006 when the State Committee de-chartered the LPQC to April 28, 2007 when the delegates in attendance at the 2007 NYLP Annual State Convention re-chartered it.
Sam Sloan, Candidate For The Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination In 2012, Includes Support For The Legalization Of Polygamy In His Platform
Sam Sloan, who announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination on January 13, 2012, has included in his platform support for the legalization of polygamy and, specifically, polygyny, polyandry and group marriage.
I also support allowing men to marry more than one woman and women to marry more than one man. I have no problem with a man or woman marrying multiple partners of any gender.
Sam Sloan converted to Islam and is also known as Haji Mohammed Ismail Sloan. He has been married three times and has eight children by five women. He has not practiced polygamy and has no intention of doing so. His full stand on this issue is contained in context in his Gay Rights & Marriage Equality platform stand, which is reprinted here:
Anybody who knows my history knows that my record on supporting gay rights is second to none. I was the President of the Campus Sexual Rights Forum, an on-campus student organization at the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. As a Libertarian, my long term goal is to get the government out of the marriage business. However, so long as the government continues to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples, I believe the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires it to issue licenses to same-sex couples on "equal protection" grounds. I also support allowing men to marry more than one woman and women to marry more than one man. I have no problem with a man or woman marrying multiple partners of any gender. I couldn't care less if a person wanted to marry their cat or dog. It is simply none of the government's business.
To read Sam Sloan's Statement of Candidacy and full Platform, go to:
http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2012/01/samuel-howard-sloan-aka-haji-mohammed.html
Polygamy is a marriage which includes more than two partners. The relationship is called Polygyny when a man is married to more than one wife at a time and where there is no marriage bond between the wives. The relationship is called Polyandry when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time and where there is no marriage bond between the husbands. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it is called Group Marriage.
I also support allowing men to marry more than one woman and women to marry more than one man. I have no problem with a man or woman marrying multiple partners of any gender.
Sam Sloan converted to Islam and is also known as Haji Mohammed Ismail Sloan. He has been married three times and has eight children by five women. He has not practiced polygamy and has no intention of doing so. His full stand on this issue is contained in context in his Gay Rights & Marriage Equality platform stand, which is reprinted here:
Anybody who knows my history knows that my record on supporting gay rights is second to none. I was the President of the Campus Sexual Rights Forum, an on-campus student organization at the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. As a Libertarian, my long term goal is to get the government out of the marriage business. However, so long as the government continues to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples, I believe the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires it to issue licenses to same-sex couples on "equal protection" grounds. I also support allowing men to marry more than one woman and women to marry more than one man. I have no problem with a man or woman marrying multiple partners of any gender. I couldn't care less if a person wanted to marry their cat or dog. It is simply none of the government's business.
To read Sam Sloan's Statement of Candidacy and full Platform, go to:
http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2012/01/samuel-howard-sloan-aka-haji-mohammed.html
Polygamy is a marriage which includes more than two partners. The relationship is called Polygyny when a man is married to more than one wife at a time and where there is no marriage bond between the wives. The relationship is called Polyandry when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time and where there is no marriage bond between the husbands. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it is called Group Marriage.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Occupy Wall Street: Pro & Cons For The Libertarian Activist
Libertarian Party activists seem to be divided as to whether Occupy Wall Street demonstrations present an opportunity to spread and market the libertarian message or in no way reflect libertarian ideals. This deep division was in evidence at the Libertarian Party of Queens County's Annual Convention held at Bohemian Hall in Astoria, New York on Saturday, January 14, 2012.
Rocco Fama, a former member of the Libertarian Party of Queens County, who now lives in Staten Island, was the Guest Speaker. He spoke on the topic of "Mass Movements As Market Opportunities (for the Libertarian Party): Occupy Wall Street & Beyond". In attendance at the meeting was Ed Konecnik, a current member of the Libertarian Party of Queens County, who held a different opinion about Occupy Wall Street. A summary of Rocco Fama's presentation and an Open Letter written by Ed Konecnik appear below.
Rocco Fama - "Mass Movements As Market Opportunities: Occupy Wall Street & Beyond"
The main political theme unifying most OWS demonstrators is Socio-Economic & Political Inequality. The basic belief that the more money you have, the more you can influence government and the more regulations will favor them at the expense of consumers and laborers. There would, therefore, be less inequality by just opening up the free market. Many demonstrators would argue they are not against capitalism but only against crony capitalism.
Many Occupy Wall Street demonstrators voted for Obama and are now quite disillusioned. These individuals are ripe for recruitment into the Libertarian Party. Dallwyn Merck, LPQC Secretary, has been in Zuccotti Park since the beginning spreading libertarian principles. He is well-spoken and with time on his hands. More libertarian activists need to be there.
Occupy Wall Street is a community with a great deal of organization and there are rules all demonstrators must follow. The "Good Neighbor Policy", arrived at after negotiations with the Local Community Board, includes rules against drinking, doing drugs or drumming (before 11:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m.).
There is the General Assembly, a decision making body open to anyone. They make decisions on a consensus basis. As a voter, you can step back and abstain or you can vote "no" and decide to end your association with Occupy Wall Street. In some cases, majority decisions are allowed. The General Assembly votes on the allocation of funds. While they once had up to a million dollars in their account, they now have $200,000.00. As examples, money is given out for Metro Cards, $10,000.00 a week for food, and to pay churches for letting demonstrators sleep there overnight.
The second body is called the Spokescouncil, which includes representatives from all the Working Groups. Some of the Working Groups deal with Sanitation, Anti-War, Kitchen, Comfort, Lending Library, Medics Professionals, other Policy & Philosophy Groups and a Demands Working Group that has not yet made any demands since demands open the door to negotiations and they don't feel the government would be a reliable partner in said negotiations. Spokespeople do not generally have the authority to make a decision on behalf of their group. If they do agree to an action, they must go back to their group to get the action ratified. Working groups are required to rotate representation.
Many meetings of the General Assembly, the Spokescouncil and the Working Groups meet at 60 Wall Street (a public atrium) in Manhattan. All decisions only affect New York Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Movements in other cities are independent.
While it is true that some Occupy Wall Street demonstrators seek greater government regulation and more government benefits, many want to End The Fed, bring an end to Foreign Military Entanglements and other issues with which libertarians would agree. Demonstrators include Progressives, Socialists, Libertarians and Communists. The communists there believe in a classless, stateless society where everyone pitches in and helps and where all decisions are made communally. Marxism is dying in radical politics. Marxists active in OWS are considered either very stupid or very old.
About a quarter of OWS demonstrators would identify as some type of anarchist and OWS is organized along anarchist principles. While it may seem a contradiction that anarchy is order, it really is people coming together to form groups they wish to join without the interference of government.
Zuccotti Park is privately owned public space. In a 1968 agreement with U.S. Steel, the government allowed them to build 9 extra floors on its building in return for their donating to the city a park that was supposed to remain accessible to the public 24 hours a day. However you feel about the government coercion that led to that agreement, a contract was signed and the demonstrators have a constitutional right to express themselves. Recently, the barricades have been removed and the demonstrators have returned to Zuccotti Park but park regulations against sleeping bags and requirements to keep circulating paths open are being enforced.
In the future, some have argued the physical occupation is coming to an end because it is exhausting OWS resources and that in the future, OWS actions will be more targeted such as actions to squat at foreclosed homes or at the headquarters of particular corporate entities. Blockades so the military industrial complex cannot get their goods out of the factory are also being considered. When and if donations dry up, some are considering getting land, growing food and squatting. Other ideas include using their money to make micro-loans to demonstrators to go out and start their own businesses.
The goal of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators is to bring attention to a lot of issues. Many have no interest in lobbying. Others, himself included, have argued in favor of revolution, forming the community they would like to see in the country. What they have done is set up a prototype for a "Temporary Autonomous Zone". You can then take that model and apply it in other contexts.
Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are energetic, engaged people the Libertarian Party should market to.
Ed Konecnik wrote the following Open Letter to the LPQC in response to Rocco Fama's presentation:
I’m not sure why anyone would nurture the delusions of an OWS protester who thinks people who defecate on cars, urinate in the streets, inconvenience businesses causing some to close, express disdain for wealth and the wealthy, foment class warfare have something in common with libertarians and Libertarianism. His equivocation on a number of issues, subtle disregard of the Constitution, predilection for anarchy and revolution, and a gross misunderstanding of economics neither added anything nor enlightened those present. He claims he is an anarchist yet considers himself a leader; hypocrisy of the highest order.
He confirms the OWS occupiers have no main grievance or “central message” except inequality. Protesting “inequality” is akin to protesting weather. Inequality is a part of life, of nature, our existence. It is clear that the occupier’s lexicon defines “greed” as those with a lot of money must have stolen it, “social justice” requires the wealthy share since they have more than they need, “fairness” means redistribution to each according to his needs.
This confused young man may have been educated beyond his ability to learn and in no way reflects the libertarian ideals I hold dear, in spite of his declarations. He is under the illusion that by occupying Zuccotti Park, he is enabling “hope and change” and publicizing his misguided conception of libertarianism. His occupation of Zuccotti Park does not make him a libertarian any more than my standing in a garage makes me a car.
Rocco Fama, a former member of the Libertarian Party of Queens County, who now lives in Staten Island, was the Guest Speaker. He spoke on the topic of "Mass Movements As Market Opportunities (for the Libertarian Party): Occupy Wall Street & Beyond". In attendance at the meeting was Ed Konecnik, a current member of the Libertarian Party of Queens County, who held a different opinion about Occupy Wall Street. A summary of Rocco Fama's presentation and an Open Letter written by Ed Konecnik appear below.
Rocco Fama - "Mass Movements As Market Opportunities: Occupy Wall Street & Beyond"
The main political theme unifying most OWS demonstrators is Socio-Economic & Political Inequality. The basic belief that the more money you have, the more you can influence government and the more regulations will favor them at the expense of consumers and laborers. There would, therefore, be less inequality by just opening up the free market. Many demonstrators would argue they are not against capitalism but only against crony capitalism.
Many Occupy Wall Street demonstrators voted for Obama and are now quite disillusioned. These individuals are ripe for recruitment into the Libertarian Party. Dallwyn Merck, LPQC Secretary, has been in Zuccotti Park since the beginning spreading libertarian principles. He is well-spoken and with time on his hands. More libertarian activists need to be there.
Occupy Wall Street is a community with a great deal of organization and there are rules all demonstrators must follow. The "Good Neighbor Policy", arrived at after negotiations with the Local Community Board, includes rules against drinking, doing drugs or drumming (before 11:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m.).
There is the General Assembly, a decision making body open to anyone. They make decisions on a consensus basis. As a voter, you can step back and abstain or you can vote "no" and decide to end your association with Occupy Wall Street. In some cases, majority decisions are allowed. The General Assembly votes on the allocation of funds. While they once had up to a million dollars in their account, they now have $200,000.00. As examples, money is given out for Metro Cards, $10,000.00 a week for food, and to pay churches for letting demonstrators sleep there overnight.
The second body is called the Spokescouncil, which includes representatives from all the Working Groups. Some of the Working Groups deal with Sanitation, Anti-War, Kitchen, Comfort, Lending Library, Medics Professionals, other Policy & Philosophy Groups and a Demands Working Group that has not yet made any demands since demands open the door to negotiations and they don't feel the government would be a reliable partner in said negotiations. Spokespeople do not generally have the authority to make a decision on behalf of their group. If they do agree to an action, they must go back to their group to get the action ratified. Working groups are required to rotate representation.
Many meetings of the General Assembly, the Spokescouncil and the Working Groups meet at 60 Wall Street (a public atrium) in Manhattan. All decisions only affect New York Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Movements in other cities are independent.
While it is true that some Occupy Wall Street demonstrators seek greater government regulation and more government benefits, many want to End The Fed, bring an end to Foreign Military Entanglements and other issues with which libertarians would agree. Demonstrators include Progressives, Socialists, Libertarians and Communists. The communists there believe in a classless, stateless society where everyone pitches in and helps and where all decisions are made communally. Marxism is dying in radical politics. Marxists active in OWS are considered either very stupid or very old.
About a quarter of OWS demonstrators would identify as some type of anarchist and OWS is organized along anarchist principles. While it may seem a contradiction that anarchy is order, it really is people coming together to form groups they wish to join without the interference of government.
Zuccotti Park is privately owned public space. In a 1968 agreement with U.S. Steel, the government allowed them to build 9 extra floors on its building in return for their donating to the city a park that was supposed to remain accessible to the public 24 hours a day. However you feel about the government coercion that led to that agreement, a contract was signed and the demonstrators have a constitutional right to express themselves. Recently, the barricades have been removed and the demonstrators have returned to Zuccotti Park but park regulations against sleeping bags and requirements to keep circulating paths open are being enforced.
In the future, some have argued the physical occupation is coming to an end because it is exhausting OWS resources and that in the future, OWS actions will be more targeted such as actions to squat at foreclosed homes or at the headquarters of particular corporate entities. Blockades so the military industrial complex cannot get their goods out of the factory are also being considered. When and if donations dry up, some are considering getting land, growing food and squatting. Other ideas include using their money to make micro-loans to demonstrators to go out and start their own businesses.
The goal of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators is to bring attention to a lot of issues. Many have no interest in lobbying. Others, himself included, have argued in favor of revolution, forming the community they would like to see in the country. What they have done is set up a prototype for a "Temporary Autonomous Zone". You can then take that model and apply it in other contexts.
Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are energetic, engaged people the Libertarian Party should market to.
Ed Konecnik wrote the following Open Letter to the LPQC in response to Rocco Fama's presentation:
I’m not sure why anyone would nurture the delusions of an OWS protester who thinks people who defecate on cars, urinate in the streets, inconvenience businesses causing some to close, express disdain for wealth and the wealthy, foment class warfare have something in common with libertarians and Libertarianism. His equivocation on a number of issues, subtle disregard of the Constitution, predilection for anarchy and revolution, and a gross misunderstanding of economics neither added anything nor enlightened those present. He claims he is an anarchist yet considers himself a leader; hypocrisy of the highest order.
He confirms the OWS occupiers have no main grievance or “central message” except inequality. Protesting “inequality” is akin to protesting weather. Inequality is a part of life, of nature, our existence. It is clear that the occupier’s lexicon defines “greed” as those with a lot of money must have stolen it, “social justice” requires the wealthy share since they have more than they need, “fairness” means redistribution to each according to his needs.
This confused young man may have been educated beyond his ability to learn and in no way reflects the libertarian ideals I hold dear, in spite of his declarations. He is under the illusion that by occupying Zuccotti Park, he is enabling “hope and change” and publicizing his misguided conception of libertarianism. His occupation of Zuccotti Park does not make him a libertarian any more than my standing in a garage makes me a car.
Samuel Howard Sloan a/k/a Haji Mohammed Ismail Sloan Announces Candidacy For Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination In 2012
On January 13, 2012, Samuel Howard Sloan a/k/a Haji Mohammed Ismail Sloan, a member of the national Libertarian Party, who has registered his candidacy and his campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission, announced his intention to seek the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination in 2012.
Below is the Statement of Candidacy and Platform submitted by Sam Sloan:
"I have decided to become a candidate for President of the United States. My main reason for taking this step is that I am deeply disappointed with the field of candidates that have announced thus far. None of them are suitable to become President, in my opinion. I know I can do better.
I most recently was runner-up for the New York State Libertarian Party's Gubernatorial Nomination in 2010 and have been an enrolled "Libertarian Party" member for many years. I maintain residences in New York and California. I am a member of the Libertarian Party of Queens County.
Here is my basic campaign platform:
End The Drug War
As President, I will work to abolish all laws making criminal the use or possession of any drug. I will also release from prison anyone convicted solely of such offenses. I believe as a constitutional and human right everybody has the right to decide on what drugs they will use. I am a book publisher and within the last week I have published two books on alternative medicine. The government simply does not have the right to stop anybody from using these drugs. I mention this point first because, in my view, this is the litmus test for being a Libertarian. Anybody who does not agree on this point should not, under any circumstances, be considered for the Libertarian Party as a candidate for any office. Yet, all too often in the past, candidates have received the Libertarian Party nomination without being able to pass this litmus test or without even being asked this question.
Drastically Reduce The Size of Government
Every candidate since I was a kid has promised to reduce the size of government but, once they were elected, did the opposite. I will keep the promise that nobody else has kept. I promise to run a surplus until the national debt has been paid off. I will never bail out anybody. I will never ask for the debt ceiling to be increased. At the same time, I am a Libertarian. I am not an anarchist. I do not want to abolish paper money. I will simply cut spending and use the surplus to pay off the national debt. This is a promise often made but
never kept.
Gay Rights & Marriage Equality
Anybody who knows my history knows that my record on supporting gay rights is second to none. I was the President of the Campus Sexual Rights Forum, an on-campus student organization at the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. As a Libertarian, my long term goal is to get the government out of the marriage business. However, so long as the government continues to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples, I believe the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires it to issue licenses to same-sex couples on "equal protection" grounds. I also support allowing men to marry more than one woman and women to marry more than one man. I have no problem with a man or woman marrying multiple partners of any gender. I couldn't care less if a person wanted to marry their cat or dog. It is simply none of the government's business.
Incarcerated Prisoners
A high percentage of all prisoners in the jails around the country are either completely not guilty or were charged with offenses that should not be crimes. There are also a lot of illegal aliens in jail. When I take office as President, I intend to order a massive release of prisoners. Those who came from other counties will be sent back home after being told if they come back to the USA they will be put back in prison to serve the remainder of their sentence. This huge release of prisoners will relieve the burden they create on taxpayers.
End Foreign Wars
Make no mistake, I am no pacifist. There are times when the USA must intervene. However, those times are few and far between. We did the right thing by eliminating Osama bin Laden. I am strongly opposed to bombing any country that has not bombed or threatened to bomb us first. It is not our duty to defend foreign countries although we should do so under extreme and rare circumstances. Three of my uncles saw the heaviest fighting in World War II. My uncle Edward Sloan participated in the Invasion of Iwo Jima. Another uncle, Newell Jacobson, fought in the Battle of the Bulge. A third uncle Alden Jacobson, was a B-29 Bomber pilot who flew 30 bombing missions over Japan and was the pilot of a support aircraft to the aircraft that dropped the A-Bomb on Nagasaki. He saw the bomb go off. I have eight children. One daughter served four years in the U.S. Marines including the War in Iraq. Two of my sons are in the U.S. Army now preparing for deployment in Afghanistan. I understand the costs of war and entering into it should not be a decision taken lightly.
Habeas Corpus
The constitutional right of habeas corpus has been virtually abolished in the last two decades. Recent legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President allows Americans to be abducted and held
without any right to challenge their detention. This reflects a general loss of civil liberties in this country. It is a trend I would reverse once elected President."
Sam Sloan welcomes all invitations to participate in debates and/or to attend Libertarian Party State Conventions. You can e-mail Mr. Sloan at SamHSloan@gmail.com or you may call him directly at 1-415-349-6116.
Below is the Statement of Candidacy and Platform submitted by Sam Sloan:
"I have decided to become a candidate for President of the United States. My main reason for taking this step is that I am deeply disappointed with the field of candidates that have announced thus far. None of them are suitable to become President, in my opinion. I know I can do better.
I most recently was runner-up for the New York State Libertarian Party's Gubernatorial Nomination in 2010 and have been an enrolled "Libertarian Party" member for many years. I maintain residences in New York and California. I am a member of the Libertarian Party of Queens County.
Here is my basic campaign platform:
End The Drug War
As President, I will work to abolish all laws making criminal the use or possession of any drug. I will also release from prison anyone convicted solely of such offenses. I believe as a constitutional and human right everybody has the right to decide on what drugs they will use. I am a book publisher and within the last week I have published two books on alternative medicine. The government simply does not have the right to stop anybody from using these drugs. I mention this point first because, in my view, this is the litmus test for being a Libertarian. Anybody who does not agree on this point should not, under any circumstances, be considered for the Libertarian Party as a candidate for any office. Yet, all too often in the past, candidates have received the Libertarian Party nomination without being able to pass this litmus test or without even being asked this question.
Drastically Reduce The Size of Government
Every candidate since I was a kid has promised to reduce the size of government but, once they were elected, did the opposite. I will keep the promise that nobody else has kept. I promise to run a surplus until the national debt has been paid off. I will never bail out anybody. I will never ask for the debt ceiling to be increased. At the same time, I am a Libertarian. I am not an anarchist. I do not want to abolish paper money. I will simply cut spending and use the surplus to pay off the national debt. This is a promise often made but
never kept.
Gay Rights & Marriage Equality
Anybody who knows my history knows that my record on supporting gay rights is second to none. I was the President of the Campus Sexual Rights Forum, an on-campus student organization at the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. As a Libertarian, my long term goal is to get the government out of the marriage business. However, so long as the government continues to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples, I believe the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires it to issue licenses to same-sex couples on "equal protection" grounds. I also support allowing men to marry more than one woman and women to marry more than one man. I have no problem with a man or woman marrying multiple partners of any gender. I couldn't care less if a person wanted to marry their cat or dog. It is simply none of the government's business.
Incarcerated Prisoners
A high percentage of all prisoners in the jails around the country are either completely not guilty or were charged with offenses that should not be crimes. There are also a lot of illegal aliens in jail. When I take office as President, I intend to order a massive release of prisoners. Those who came from other counties will be sent back home after being told if they come back to the USA they will be put back in prison to serve the remainder of their sentence. This huge release of prisoners will relieve the burden they create on taxpayers.
End Foreign Wars
Make no mistake, I am no pacifist. There are times when the USA must intervene. However, those times are few and far between. We did the right thing by eliminating Osama bin Laden. I am strongly opposed to bombing any country that has not bombed or threatened to bomb us first. It is not our duty to defend foreign countries although we should do so under extreme and rare circumstances. Three of my uncles saw the heaviest fighting in World War II. My uncle Edward Sloan participated in the Invasion of Iwo Jima. Another uncle, Newell Jacobson, fought in the Battle of the Bulge. A third uncle Alden Jacobson, was a B-29 Bomber pilot who flew 30 bombing missions over Japan and was the pilot of a support aircraft to the aircraft that dropped the A-Bomb on Nagasaki. He saw the bomb go off. I have eight children. One daughter served four years in the U.S. Marines including the War in Iraq. Two of my sons are in the U.S. Army now preparing for deployment in Afghanistan. I understand the costs of war and entering into it should not be a decision taken lightly.
Habeas Corpus
The constitutional right of habeas corpus has been virtually abolished in the last two decades. Recent legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President allows Americans to be abducted and held
without any right to challenge their detention. This reflects a general loss of civil liberties in this country. It is a trend I would reverse once elected President."
Sam Sloan welcomes all invitations to participate in debates and/or to attend Libertarian Party State Conventions. You can e-mail Mr. Sloan at SamHSloan@gmail.com or you may call him directly at 1-415-349-6116.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Libertarian Party National Convention Room Rates At Red Rock Casino Reasonably Set At $119.00 Per Night
The Libertarian Party's National Convention will be held from May 4-6, 2012 at the Red Rock Casino Resort & Spa (also known as Red Rock Station) in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Convention Room Rate has been reasonably set at $119.00 plus tax per night. You may book your reservation online using the following link and Discount Code "RCILNC":
https://
After you book and print out your receipt and confirmation number, you will see a double asterisk next to your Estimated Total With Tax and if you glance at the fine print at the bottom of that page, you will see a note saying the Estimated Total With Tax does not include a Resort Amenity Fee of $24.99 plus tax per day. Initial follow-up with two reservation agents referencing my confirmation number confirmed this $24.99 fee was a mandatory fee and could not be waived.
After getting feedback to my initial blog article saying this was untrue, I again called the Red Rock Casino Reservations Line and was told that the e-mail confirmation sent out is generic and they do not remove the reference to the Resorts Amenity Fee from it but this time I had them look into the matter further and was able to confirm the Resorts Amenity Fee will NOT be charged to guests attending the Libertarian Party National Convention.
The Red Rock Casino Resort and Spa is located 11 miles from the Las Vegas Strip at 11011 West Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135. There is free Shuttle Service offered to and from McCarran International Airport (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) and to and from the Hotel and the Fashion Show Mall just off the Las Vegas Strip (11:40 a.m. to 9:40 p.m.). The hotel has a pool that is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily. For more information about the hotel, you can visit: http://www.redrocklasvegas.com/
https://
After you book and print out your receipt and confirmation number, you will see a double asterisk next to your Estimated Total With Tax and if you glance at the fine print at the bottom of that page, you will see a note saying the Estimated Total With Tax does not include a Resort Amenity Fee of $24.99 plus tax per day. Initial follow-up with two reservation agents referencing my confirmation number confirmed this $24.99 fee was a mandatory fee and could not be waived.
After getting feedback to my initial blog article saying this was untrue, I again called the Red Rock Casino Reservations Line and was told that the e-mail confirmation sent out is generic and they do not remove the reference to the Resorts Amenity Fee from it but this time I had them look into the matter further and was able to confirm the Resorts Amenity Fee will NOT be charged to guests attending the Libertarian Party National Convention.
The Red Rock Casino Resort and Spa is located 11 miles from the Las Vegas Strip at 11011 West Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135. There is free Shuttle Service offered to and from McCarran International Airport (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) and to and from the Hotel and the Fashion Show Mall just off the Las Vegas Strip (11:40 a.m. to 9:40 p.m.). The hotel has a pool that is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily. For more information about the hotel, you can visit: http://www.redrocklasvegas.com/
Friday, January 13, 2012
Sam Sloan Blasts Carl Person For His Tepid Position On The Repeal Of Gun Control Laws Calling Him A Milquetoast Libertarian Candidate For President
Sam Sloan, the runner-up for the New York Libertarian Party's gubernatorial nomination in 2010, criticized Carl Person, a candidate for the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination, for taking a general stand in favor of the Second Amendment and for repeal of gun control laws without being specific regarding what he would support and what he would not support. Mr. Sloan, a staunch libertarian activist, said he was "disgusted by the many socialist positions on issues Carl Person has taken over the past few months" and "that Libertarian Party delegates will not be fooled by this last-ditch effort to revive his candidacy by stating obvious libertarian positions on issues". Referring to Carl Person, Sam Sloan said, "A cracked Liberty Bell doesn't ring, no matter how many times you strike it!"
In a Press Release dated January 11, 2012 forwarded to Independent Political Report by Chris Doscher, Carl Person's Campaign Manager (who couldn't even catch that throughout the release Tucson, Arizona is spelled "Tuscon"), Carl Person is quoted, in part, as saying::
Gun control activists have used the one-year anniversary of the Tuscon, Arizona shootings as a springboard for their agenda of stripping away our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Years of threats to our right to bear arms have produced zero evidence that increased gun control prevents violence.
The Tuscon shootings, while tragic, were the result of one mentally disturbed individual’s actions and should not be taken as a sign that our Second Amendment rights should be further restricted...
Americans clearly will have to take more responsibility for keeping themselves, their families and their neighbors safe. As president, I will robustly defend our right to bear arms and repeal gun control laws that restrict our ability to defend ourselves and our property.
Sam Sloan responded as follows:
It is certainly true that gun control activists use every shooting of an innocent person, accidental or not, as a springboard to argue for more gun control and it is also true that increased gun control has not reduced violence but look carefully at Carl Person's position on this issue. He says the shootings in Tucson "should not be taken as a sign that our Second Amendment rights should be further restricted". From that quotation alone, one might conclude Mr. Person is O.K. with the restrictions the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Courts, currently place on gun ownership and use.
Mr. Person's second relevant quotation says, "I will robustly defend our right to bear arms and repeal gun control laws that restrict our ability to defend ourselves and our property". Here he says he will repeal those "gun control laws that restrict our ability to defend ourselves and our property". But what about other gun control laws that restrict ownership of guns not directly tied to the defense of ourselves and our property?
Will he support open-carry and concealed carry laws that allowing peaceable citizens to carry firearms without a permit?
Will he allow citizens to own semi-automatic weapons for pleasure?
Will he allow Americans to own whatever guns they want for sport?
Will he oppose legislation placing further restrictions on the sale of weapons at gun shows?
Will he support repeal of the background checks currently required by the Federal Government?
Does he support or oppose the registration of weapons?
Does he support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms?
On these and other issues, Carl Person does not tell us where he stands, and this is, probably, by intention. I know Carl Person personally and I can assure you he is no libertarian and, in my opinion, when he sought the nomination of the Green Party for Attorney General of New York in 2006 and 2010, he espoused positions on issues not in any way consistent with the Libertarian Party's National Platform.
Taking a tepid position in support of the repeal of gun control laws does nothing to change Carl's image as a Milquetoast Libertarian Candidate for President with more Socialist than Libertarian leanings. If his candidacy is any reflection of the current state of affairs in the Libertarian Party, I would say they are in significant trouble.
Sam Sloan is a member of the national Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Queens County. He maintains residences in California and New York State.
In a Press Release dated January 11, 2012 forwarded to Independent Political Report by Chris Doscher, Carl Person's Campaign Manager (who couldn't even catch that throughout the release Tucson, Arizona is spelled "Tuscon"), Carl Person is quoted, in part, as saying::
Gun control activists have used the one-year anniversary of the Tuscon, Arizona shootings as a springboard for their agenda of stripping away our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Years of threats to our right to bear arms have produced zero evidence that increased gun control prevents violence.
The Tuscon shootings, while tragic, were the result of one mentally disturbed individual’s actions and should not be taken as a sign that our Second Amendment rights should be further restricted...
Americans clearly will have to take more responsibility for keeping themselves, their families and their neighbors safe. As president, I will robustly defend our right to bear arms and repeal gun control laws that restrict our ability to defend ourselves and our property.
Sam Sloan responded as follows:
It is certainly true that gun control activists use every shooting of an innocent person, accidental or not, as a springboard to argue for more gun control and it is also true that increased gun control has not reduced violence but look carefully at Carl Person's position on this issue. He says the shootings in Tucson "should not be taken as a sign that our Second Amendment rights should be further restricted". From that quotation alone, one might conclude Mr. Person is O.K. with the restrictions the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Courts, currently place on gun ownership and use.
Mr. Person's second relevant quotation says, "I will robustly defend our right to bear arms and repeal gun control laws that restrict our ability to defend ourselves and our property". Here he says he will repeal those "gun control laws that restrict our ability to defend ourselves and our property". But what about other gun control laws that restrict ownership of guns not directly tied to the defense of ourselves and our property?
Will he support open-carry and concealed carry laws that allowing peaceable citizens to carry firearms without a permit?
Will he allow citizens to own semi-automatic weapons for pleasure?
Will he allow Americans to own whatever guns they want for sport?
Will he oppose legislation placing further restrictions on the sale of weapons at gun shows?
Will he support repeal of the background checks currently required by the Federal Government?
Does he support or oppose the registration of weapons?
Does he support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms?
On these and other issues, Carl Person does not tell us where he stands, and this is, probably, by intention. I know Carl Person personally and I can assure you he is no libertarian and, in my opinion, when he sought the nomination of the Green Party for Attorney General of New York in 2006 and 2010, he espoused positions on issues not in any way consistent with the Libertarian Party's National Platform.
Taking a tepid position in support of the repeal of gun control laws does nothing to change Carl's image as a Milquetoast Libertarian Candidate for President with more Socialist than Libertarian leanings. If his candidacy is any reflection of the current state of affairs in the Libertarian Party, I would say they are in significant trouble.
Sam Sloan is a member of the national Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Queens County. He maintains residences in California and New York State.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Mosheh Thezion a/k/a Luis Correa, Candidate For The Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination In 2012, Publishes Brief Biography
Mosheh Thezion (a/k/a Luis Correa) has published a brief biography so Libertarian Party members can get to know him better. I recommend you read it. I found it quite interesting. One conclusion you will draw is Mosheh Thezion is a very honest man.
In his biography, you will learn how in college, he "suffered the pain of being in love with a wild and loose lesbian (named Tonya) he could not win" and how during his teens and twenties, he smoked "pounds and pounds of marijuana", drank alcohol, did cocaine and was, for seven years a methamphetamine addict. He admits to being a "very sinful young man" who has been convicted of numerous crimes, including car theft, drug possession, trespassing and endless petty traffic offenses". He says he engaged in "loose sexual and moral behaviors with friends" and "had the habit of listening to his own personal devil and when he consulted his own personal angel for a difference of opinion, his angel was stoned out of his mind".
In the end, his is a story of redemption. He has "repented for his past behavior and sins", formed The Empirical Church (of which he is the only active member), and obtained an Associates Degree in Electronic Engineering from the ITT Technical Institute. He admits he is not worthy and "is less than the dirt on the bottom of your shoes". Nevertheless, he is willing to serve if you find his candidacy compelling.
Mosheh Thezion's biography is reprinted here:
"I was born on July 16, 1969 at 12:36 in the afternoon. When I was born, my parents, immigrants from Colombia, had not chosen a name for me as yet, and having no choice my mother gave my father's middle name, and so they put Fabio Correa on my birth certificate, and then, five minutes later, my father showed up and I was renamed Luis Edwardo Correa, because my Grandmother told everyone in the family that my name would be Luis, but they never fixed the birth certificate, and yet somehow got all my records as Luis, including Social Security, which while supposedly impossible was somehow done without changing the birth certificate, meaning I have two legal identities. And learning this as a teenager, it caused an identity crisis, and then, a Jewish Girlfriend's mother, who did not like the fact that I was not Jewish, insisted that my name was Moshe, and called me Moshe everyday, and always asked, "Where is Moshe?" and if asked, she would insist that my name was not Luis, but was instead, Moshe, and eventually it grew on me, and I eventually adopted it, as Mosheh (sounds better) as a third name, to solve for my lack of clear identity.
The other name of Thezion, comes from Don Mclean's, American Pie album, and eventually, I adopted the name of Mosheh Thezion, which eventually became Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion, because more often than not, people assumed I was Jewish, and while there is a family rumor of some Jewish ancestors, it is so distant that I can never claim any Jewish heritage and would never be accepted as a Jew, and am for the most part a mutt with Spanish, Portuguese, South American Indian, and perhaps some unconfirmed Jewish blood.
As a young man, I grew up with an Atheist Father who is responsible for inspiring my interest in the sciences by always handing me credible popular science magazines, and a Religious mother, who tried her best to inspire the basic concepts of religion, yet, I was as a child, rather naive and absorbed little of any of it, while sure I remember the stuff, and it did affect me, but I lacked any real understanding of it other than to say I knew what the words meant, and rarely absorbed cultural things unless it came from repetitive influences from my best friend, which was the Television, and as such I grew up ignorant of most concepts of religious morality, even though my mother and grand-mother would often drag me to Catholic Church, yet in doing so, I was unable to absorb much of anything from it other than a few key ideas which have stuck with me. And having extreme Asthma as a child, I could not go out and play, and spent most of my childhood channel surfing the Television, and at one point had the entire TV guide memorized, and I watched not only cartoons, but the news, and various TV programming of the 70's all of which left me woefully ill equipped to deal with my own adolescence, as I was most often, a shut in, due to my asthma.
At the age of 9-10, I remember asking God, in tears, why there is so much trouble in the world, and it was for myself as if the lord had reached down and removed the cover from my eyes, which I now identify as an Epiphany of understanding, where by the clarity of the problems of our world was made clear, however the solutions were still very lacking.
As a teenager, with the development of raging hormones, and surging testosterone, I got in trouble often enough, and can honestly say, I was a very sinful young man, and I began to use drugs. In fact the truth is, I have used more drugs than I can possibly describe, pounds and pounds of Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and Alcohol etc... and intoxication became a daily norm, which continued into my twenties, and along the way, I fell victim to my own personal devil time and time again, and am guilty of many many sins, in many forms, and was convicted of numerous crimes, including car theft (Convicted of Joy riding, however, I never intended to steal a car, but as I ran away from home, having a heavy bag, and no money, I happened to find a car with keys in it, and wrongly took the opportunity.), then also drug possession, trespassing, and endless petty traffic offenses, to name a few.
(But I have never hurt anyone! I don't even like killing bugs.)
So basically, I was never a perfect citizen, and was lost in a drugged haze of confused perverted freedom and loose sexual and moral behavior with friends who more often than not were just as loose in standards as I was, and in decision making was all too often in the habit of listening to my personal devil, and when I turned to my personal angel for a difference of opinion, more often than not, my angel was stoned out of his mind, and could only shrug his shoulders, and gave no arguments to the proposals of my devil. And so, I tell you, the American people, that indeed, I am not worthy of office, and I make no claim of being such, and can only express to you, that eventually, I saw the light and found religion, and repented for my sins, and gave up my sinful ways.
I GREW UP A LOOSE LIBERAL, which, IS WHY I'M A CONSERVATIVE TODAY.
In my late teens and early twenties, being completely bored and frustrated with the slow pace of College, and because of the pain of being in love with a wild and loose lesbian who's love I could not win, I began to use Methamphetamine (7 years) in a daily effort to lose myself in the pursuit of the only thing more interesting than her, which was mother nature herself (science), and while having no hope of success, I adapted myself to the OCD condition of pursuing all her secrets, by attempting to develop a Unifying Field Theory, to which I had no real hope of attaining, and for myself, it was the pursuit which mattered, because as long as I pursued nature and science as a love, I was free of my obsession with Tonya the lesbian. Eventually To my utter shock, after spending years in libraries, and writing 7000 pages of hand written notes, I developed what I believe to be that Unifying Field Theory, the ramifications of which has lead me here to build this web site, to run for office, and work on world wide solution plans for the problems which plague humankind. And in 2000 / 2001 I ventured to get an Associates degree from ITT Technical Institute, and graduated Valedictorian in electronic engineering, for use in developing personal projects.
This recognition of the potential for a God as a creator, had a profound effect on my mind, and led to the further study of religion, and my repentance for my past behaviors and sins, and provided the essence of strength to which I used to begin an analysis of behavior and the how and the why I had been so weak in the past and had sinned so often, and this resulted in marked changes in my beliefs, and thus my attitudes, and so my behavior, to which I am most grateful. Faith, can be a very powerful thing, and with the development of Unifying Field Theory, faith became a matter of evidence, and not just acceptance, and with it, doubt, can be removed in volume.
Eventually, I was walking in Hollywood CA, and as I walked, a wheel chair bound, crippled homeless woman, stopped in the middle of a side street, on Sunset Blvd, right besides a large Catholic Church, And crawled down from her wheel chair onto the floor of the side street, and she screamed to the passing Mercedes and other cars, "arrggghh.... I don't care!!!!" And then to my horror, she bent down, and began to drink from the gutter.
At that moment, all the words of Jesus came flooding back to me, and began to reverberate in my skull, and at that moment I knew what I must do, and that was to dedicate myself to finding a long term solution to this very real problem of not only our own nation but the entire world. That night, I began to form a new church, so as to address this core issue, of compassion and love and family, as described by Jesus, the Bible and most world religions... See---- > http://empiricalchurch.org/
To be able to embrace the whole world, I created a pluralist religious order, based on a foundation of science and religious faith, as derived from consideration of my Unifying Field Theory, and organized it, to fulfill the sacerdotal function of love and family, instead of the typical effort of worship, prayer and preaching.
To this day, it is but infantile in it's form, and as of yet, I am it's only active member, yet I am hopeful for it's long term eventual development.
Immediately, after writing it's foundation and building it's web site, I came to quickly see it's limitations, as while it could serve one percent 1% of our nation, it could not solve the underlying problems of our stagnant economies, and the entrenched problems of our world, and if it was to grow in size, and attempt to do so, it could only do so, by replacing the governments of our world, and in doing so, would become a problem in itself, and always there would be those who desire and deserve the free market and the non-religious freedom of the secular world economy, and would see such a church order, as a theocratic oppressive force, and since my concern is for all human kind, I began to consider larger scale solutions for the vast world wide problems of economic poverty and how we as a whole could solve not only the problem of the poorest of the poor but of the whole world, and eventually, I believe I developed an adequate solution for these problems as well. Which if implemented would end all world poverty, and allow such a church to serve it's core function of helping the meekest of the meek, rather than attempting large scale control and solution efforts.
After several years of writing abundant (sometimes insulting) letters to every nation on earth, concerning these economic solution plans, and being completely ignored, it has dawned on me, that if such solution plans are to be implemented then I must do so myself, as I cannot expect the politicians as they stand to do much of anything. Since, for the past 80 years, they have allowed the robbing of our freedom, and have sold our people out to foreign powers, and on the whole seem to suffer from a complete lack of vision. The same of which can be said of the International Bankers, and whom ever is advising them, since their methodology is nothing more than an extension of the same old world enslavement tactics, under the disguise of world wide corporate nation status out of the U.N. and funded by complicated banking schemes of power and control. All of which is highly flawed and limited to say the least. And I have devoted myself to the effort of offering the powers that be a much more effective means of accomplishing the same goals of world government, but using polar opposite methods such as ending all world debt, ending all world poverty, expanding the free market, restoring real freedom, and building a proper future destiny of prosperity for our species, and making money doing it.
So let it be clearly known, that I do not consider myself as being worthy of public office, in fact it will not be difficult for my opponents to attack me and to degrade my image, as the truth be told, rather than suggest to you that I am morally superior, or an intellectual elite, or deserving of leading you, I prefer to humble myself and say clearly, that I am less than the dirt on the bottom of your shoes, and should not be considered as being anything but that, and I would make no claim of being better than any other human, or worthy of being your leader.. no.. If anything I am applying for the job of President in 2012, so that I may be your humble servant, literally. I ask to be your servant, not your leader, and everything I try to do is to try and help my people.
I am running for office, simply because I have no choice, because we have lost the Constitution as law, and our present politicians seem completely incapable of solving for these many entrenched problems, and I am compelled beyond my ability to stop myself to stand and try and do something about it.
The truth is, I lived my life as a foul sinner, and I am still technically a sinner, but I have found God in my life, and I have repented for my sins and past behavior and I can only hope it is enough to save my soul. And in this life, I recognize Jesus as lord of this earth, and feel that it is the role and purpose of the religious people of our earth to take steps to wrestle it away from the hands of Satan, which all too often has been in charge.
Today, I am engaged to marry the most wonderful, kind, and beautiful woman I have ever met on earth, and I would express that I quit smoking Tobacco cold turkey, over 4 years ago, and will never under any circumstances smoke again, as these substances bring no benefit to a persons life, and are literally like chains which enslave us, either to chemicals, or bad habits of behavior, and knowing the pains of addiction, I honestly feel, I can help others in dealing with their consumptive problems.
The key to overcoming addiction is to recognize how it stands in the way of doing better things, and to want those better things, and to learn to hate the chains which bind us to our failures. And break those chains.
For considerations in recognition of the challenge of overcoming personal evil. It will not be an easy battle, and it cannot happen over night, but together human kind as a species, can learn to lock up our personal devils, and set humanity free of the burden of sin, while at the same time, allowing for the freedom of the individual to make their own decisions, without force, or needing abundant legislation to enforce morality, since those values should be taught as common place, and easily promoted in our schools, prisons, and on every street corner in a general sense, by the media at large.
So, while I have indeed lived as a sinner, with very loose liberal values, it is that life and the recognition of it's flaws, which has converted me, and turned me into the conservative which I am today, because loose liberal values has lead our nation into social norms of heavy drug abuse, loose sexual behavior, open sin, the killing of the un-born, a degradation of marriage, and the promotion of values and concepts which are themselves inherently satanic, meaning in essence, the concept of freedom has been perverted into meaning freedom from responsibility, shame, and guilt, and God, and that is NOT freedom, and is instead, enslavement to Satanic concepts and bad brainwashing by our loose media and secular educational systems.
But I am here to say, it's not too late.
I do not stand before you, and come to you as a worthy man, and you should know that instead, I come before you as a man, who is humbled by my own faults, shamed by my own sins, and guilty of my own crimes against myself, my God, and my people, and I can never wash away those sins, and they are like black stains on my soul which can never be washed away. But, the bad behavior, and bad habits, CAN be overcome, and I promote very clear ways to help all my brothers and sisters overcome their negative tendencies and habits.
All I can do, is try to be my best, by fighting for what I know to be right, and that is why I run for office, as an attempt to do and be the best I can be, by helping my people, instead of just hiding in a corner, or standing in public office like most politicians, and accepting things the way they are. (Things today, are not as they should be or could be.)
Just because we have sinned, and made mistakes, does not mean we should give up, give in, and accept what is wrong, in our lives, our environment, or our nation and politics. We must fight on.
The Constitution must be restored as the rule of law, and with it, the common law freedom it provides, where our government has limits, and where people are expected to be gentlemen and ladies, and where morality is common place, and sin and loose ways are no longer mainstream in our schools, our media, and most especially in our daily lives, and the lives of our children.
I may not be very strong, but I will try as I am able, I will try to help solve our worlds problems, and if anyone has a problem with that, then let them challenge the worth of my proposals for solution, and if they cannot find real flaw, then by all that is reasonable and logical, they, you, and all human kind should support these efforts, for if you elect someone else, you will get what you vote for."
In his biography, you will learn how in college, he "suffered the pain of being in love with a wild and loose lesbian (named Tonya) he could not win" and how during his teens and twenties, he smoked "pounds and pounds of marijuana", drank alcohol, did cocaine and was, for seven years a methamphetamine addict. He admits to being a "very sinful young man" who has been convicted of numerous crimes, including car theft, drug possession, trespassing and endless petty traffic offenses". He says he engaged in "loose sexual and moral behaviors with friends" and "had the habit of listening to his own personal devil and when he consulted his own personal angel for a difference of opinion, his angel was stoned out of his mind".
In the end, his is a story of redemption. He has "repented for his past behavior and sins", formed The Empirical Church (of which he is the only active member), and obtained an Associates Degree in Electronic Engineering from the ITT Technical Institute. He admits he is not worthy and "is less than the dirt on the bottom of your shoes". Nevertheless, he is willing to serve if you find his candidacy compelling.
Mosheh Thezion's biography is reprinted here:
"I was born on July 16, 1969 at 12:36 in the afternoon. When I was born, my parents, immigrants from Colombia, had not chosen a name for me as yet, and having no choice my mother gave my father's middle name, and so they put Fabio Correa on my birth certificate, and then, five minutes later, my father showed up and I was renamed Luis Edwardo Correa, because my Grandmother told everyone in the family that my name would be Luis, but they never fixed the birth certificate, and yet somehow got all my records as Luis, including Social Security, which while supposedly impossible was somehow done without changing the birth certificate, meaning I have two legal identities. And learning this as a teenager, it caused an identity crisis, and then, a Jewish Girlfriend's mother, who did not like the fact that I was not Jewish, insisted that my name was Moshe, and called me Moshe everyday, and always asked, "Where is Moshe?" and if asked, she would insist that my name was not Luis, but was instead, Moshe, and eventually it grew on me, and I eventually adopted it, as Mosheh (sounds better) as a third name, to solve for my lack of clear identity.
The other name of Thezion, comes from Don Mclean's, American Pie album, and eventually, I adopted the name of Mosheh Thezion, which eventually became Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion, because more often than not, people assumed I was Jewish, and while there is a family rumor of some Jewish ancestors, it is so distant that I can never claim any Jewish heritage and would never be accepted as a Jew, and am for the most part a mutt with Spanish, Portuguese, South American Indian, and perhaps some unconfirmed Jewish blood.
As a young man, I grew up with an Atheist Father who is responsible for inspiring my interest in the sciences by always handing me credible popular science magazines, and a Religious mother, who tried her best to inspire the basic concepts of religion, yet, I was as a child, rather naive and absorbed little of any of it, while sure I remember the stuff, and it did affect me, but I lacked any real understanding of it other than to say I knew what the words meant, and rarely absorbed cultural things unless it came from repetitive influences from my best friend, which was the Television, and as such I grew up ignorant of most concepts of religious morality, even though my mother and grand-mother would often drag me to Catholic Church, yet in doing so, I was unable to absorb much of anything from it other than a few key ideas which have stuck with me. And having extreme Asthma as a child, I could not go out and play, and spent most of my childhood channel surfing the Television, and at one point had the entire TV guide memorized, and I watched not only cartoons, but the news, and various TV programming of the 70's all of which left me woefully ill equipped to deal with my own adolescence, as I was most often, a shut in, due to my asthma.
At the age of 9-10, I remember asking God, in tears, why there is so much trouble in the world, and it was for myself as if the lord had reached down and removed the cover from my eyes, which I now identify as an Epiphany of understanding, where by the clarity of the problems of our world was made clear, however the solutions were still very lacking.
As a teenager, with the development of raging hormones, and surging testosterone, I got in trouble often enough, and can honestly say, I was a very sinful young man, and I began to use drugs. In fact the truth is, I have used more drugs than I can possibly describe, pounds and pounds of Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and Alcohol etc... and intoxication became a daily norm, which continued into my twenties, and along the way, I fell victim to my own personal devil time and time again, and am guilty of many many sins, in many forms, and was convicted of numerous crimes, including car theft (Convicted of Joy riding, however, I never intended to steal a car, but as I ran away from home, having a heavy bag, and no money, I happened to find a car with keys in it, and wrongly took the opportunity.), then also drug possession, trespassing, and endless petty traffic offenses, to name a few.
(But I have never hurt anyone! I don't even like killing bugs.)
So basically, I was never a perfect citizen, and was lost in a drugged haze of confused perverted freedom and loose sexual and moral behavior with friends who more often than not were just as loose in standards as I was, and in decision making was all too often in the habit of listening to my personal devil, and when I turned to my personal angel for a difference of opinion, more often than not, my angel was stoned out of his mind, and could only shrug his shoulders, and gave no arguments to the proposals of my devil. And so, I tell you, the American people, that indeed, I am not worthy of office, and I make no claim of being such, and can only express to you, that eventually, I saw the light and found religion, and repented for my sins, and gave up my sinful ways.
I GREW UP A LOOSE LIBERAL, which, IS WHY I'M A CONSERVATIVE TODAY.
In my late teens and early twenties, being completely bored and frustrated with the slow pace of College, and because of the pain of being in love with a wild and loose lesbian who's love I could not win, I began to use Methamphetamine (7 years) in a daily effort to lose myself in the pursuit of the only thing more interesting than her, which was mother nature herself (science), and while having no hope of success, I adapted myself to the OCD condition of pursuing all her secrets, by attempting to develop a Unifying Field Theory, to which I had no real hope of attaining, and for myself, it was the pursuit which mattered, because as long as I pursued nature and science as a love, I was free of my obsession with Tonya the lesbian. Eventually To my utter shock, after spending years in libraries, and writing 7000 pages of hand written notes, I developed what I believe to be that Unifying Field Theory, the ramifications of which has lead me here to build this web site, to run for office, and work on world wide solution plans for the problems which plague humankind. And in 2000 / 2001 I ventured to get an Associates degree from ITT Technical Institute, and graduated Valedictorian in electronic engineering, for use in developing personal projects.
This recognition of the potential for a God as a creator, had a profound effect on my mind, and led to the further study of religion, and my repentance for my past behaviors and sins, and provided the essence of strength to which I used to begin an analysis of behavior and the how and the why I had been so weak in the past and had sinned so often, and this resulted in marked changes in my beliefs, and thus my attitudes, and so my behavior, to which I am most grateful. Faith, can be a very powerful thing, and with the development of Unifying Field Theory, faith became a matter of evidence, and not just acceptance, and with it, doubt, can be removed in volume.
Eventually, I was walking in Hollywood CA, and as I walked, a wheel chair bound, crippled homeless woman, stopped in the middle of a side street, on Sunset Blvd, right besides a large Catholic Church, And crawled down from her wheel chair onto the floor of the side street, and she screamed to the passing Mercedes and other cars, "arrggghh.... I don't care!!!!" And then to my horror, she bent down, and began to drink from the gutter.
At that moment, all the words of Jesus came flooding back to me, and began to reverberate in my skull, and at that moment I knew what I must do, and that was to dedicate myself to finding a long term solution to this very real problem of not only our own nation but the entire world. That night, I began to form a new church, so as to address this core issue, of compassion and love and family, as described by Jesus, the Bible and most world religions... See---- > http://empiricalchurch.org/
To be able to embrace the whole world, I created a pluralist religious order, based on a foundation of science and religious faith, as derived from consideration of my Unifying Field Theory, and organized it, to fulfill the sacerdotal function of love and family, instead of the typical effort of worship, prayer and preaching.
To this day, it is but infantile in it's form, and as of yet, I am it's only active member, yet I am hopeful for it's long term eventual development.
Immediately, after writing it's foundation and building it's web site, I came to quickly see it's limitations, as while it could serve one percent 1% of our nation, it could not solve the underlying problems of our stagnant economies, and the entrenched problems of our world, and if it was to grow in size, and attempt to do so, it could only do so, by replacing the governments of our world, and in doing so, would become a problem in itself, and always there would be those who desire and deserve the free market and the non-religious freedom of the secular world economy, and would see such a church order, as a theocratic oppressive force, and since my concern is for all human kind, I began to consider larger scale solutions for the vast world wide problems of economic poverty and how we as a whole could solve not only the problem of the poorest of the poor but of the whole world, and eventually, I believe I developed an adequate solution for these problems as well. Which if implemented would end all world poverty, and allow such a church to serve it's core function of helping the meekest of the meek, rather than attempting large scale control and solution efforts.
After several years of writing abundant (sometimes insulting) letters to every nation on earth, concerning these economic solution plans, and being completely ignored, it has dawned on me, that if such solution plans are to be implemented then I must do so myself, as I cannot expect the politicians as they stand to do much of anything. Since, for the past 80 years, they have allowed the robbing of our freedom, and have sold our people out to foreign powers, and on the whole seem to suffer from a complete lack of vision. The same of which can be said of the International Bankers, and whom ever is advising them, since their methodology is nothing more than an extension of the same old world enslavement tactics, under the disguise of world wide corporate nation status out of the U.N. and funded by complicated banking schemes of power and control. All of which is highly flawed and limited to say the least. And I have devoted myself to the effort of offering the powers that be a much more effective means of accomplishing the same goals of world government, but using polar opposite methods such as ending all world debt, ending all world poverty, expanding the free market, restoring real freedom, and building a proper future destiny of prosperity for our species, and making money doing it.
So let it be clearly known, that I do not consider myself as being worthy of public office, in fact it will not be difficult for my opponents to attack me and to degrade my image, as the truth be told, rather than suggest to you that I am morally superior, or an intellectual elite, or deserving of leading you, I prefer to humble myself and say clearly, that I am less than the dirt on the bottom of your shoes, and should not be considered as being anything but that, and I would make no claim of being better than any other human, or worthy of being your leader.. no.. If anything I am applying for the job of President in 2012, so that I may be your humble servant, literally. I ask to be your servant, not your leader, and everything I try to do is to try and help my people.
I am running for office, simply because I have no choice, because we have lost the Constitution as law, and our present politicians seem completely incapable of solving for these many entrenched problems, and I am compelled beyond my ability to stop myself to stand and try and do something about it.
The truth is, I lived my life as a foul sinner, and I am still technically a sinner, but I have found God in my life, and I have repented for my sins and past behavior and I can only hope it is enough to save my soul. And in this life, I recognize Jesus as lord of this earth, and feel that it is the role and purpose of the religious people of our earth to take steps to wrestle it away from the hands of Satan, which all too often has been in charge.
Today, I am engaged to marry the most wonderful, kind, and beautiful woman I have ever met on earth, and I would express that I quit smoking Tobacco cold turkey, over 4 years ago, and will never under any circumstances smoke again, as these substances bring no benefit to a persons life, and are literally like chains which enslave us, either to chemicals, or bad habits of behavior, and knowing the pains of addiction, I honestly feel, I can help others in dealing with their consumptive problems.
The key to overcoming addiction is to recognize how it stands in the way of doing better things, and to want those better things, and to learn to hate the chains which bind us to our failures. And break those chains.
For considerations in recognition of the challenge of overcoming personal evil. It will not be an easy battle, and it cannot happen over night, but together human kind as a species, can learn to lock up our personal devils, and set humanity free of the burden of sin, while at the same time, allowing for the freedom of the individual to make their own decisions, without force, or needing abundant legislation to enforce morality, since those values should be taught as common place, and easily promoted in our schools, prisons, and on every street corner in a general sense, by the media at large.
So, while I have indeed lived as a sinner, with very loose liberal values, it is that life and the recognition of it's flaws, which has converted me, and turned me into the conservative which I am today, because loose liberal values has lead our nation into social norms of heavy drug abuse, loose sexual behavior, open sin, the killing of the un-born, a degradation of marriage, and the promotion of values and concepts which are themselves inherently satanic, meaning in essence, the concept of freedom has been perverted into meaning freedom from responsibility, shame, and guilt, and God, and that is NOT freedom, and is instead, enslavement to Satanic concepts and bad brainwashing by our loose media and secular educational systems.
But I am here to say, it's not too late.
I do not stand before you, and come to you as a worthy man, and you should know that instead, I come before you as a man, who is humbled by my own faults, shamed by my own sins, and guilty of my own crimes against myself, my God, and my people, and I can never wash away those sins, and they are like black stains on my soul which can never be washed away. But, the bad behavior, and bad habits, CAN be overcome, and I promote very clear ways to help all my brothers and sisters overcome their negative tendencies and habits.
All I can do, is try to be my best, by fighting for what I know to be right, and that is why I run for office, as an attempt to do and be the best I can be, by helping my people, instead of just hiding in a corner, or standing in public office like most politicians, and accepting things the way they are. (Things today, are not as they should be or could be.)
Just because we have sinned, and made mistakes, does not mean we should give up, give in, and accept what is wrong, in our lives, our environment, or our nation and politics. We must fight on.
The Constitution must be restored as the rule of law, and with it, the common law freedom it provides, where our government has limits, and where people are expected to be gentlemen and ladies, and where morality is common place, and sin and loose ways are no longer mainstream in our schools, our media, and most especially in our daily lives, and the lives of our children.
I may not be very strong, but I will try as I am able, I will try to help solve our worlds problems, and if anyone has a problem with that, then let them challenge the worth of my proposals for solution, and if they cannot find real flaw, then by all that is reasonable and logical, they, you, and all human kind should support these efforts, for if you elect someone else, you will get what you vote for."
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion a/k/a Luis Edwardo Correa Announces Candidacy For The Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination In 2012
On January 11, 2012, Mosheh Thezion (a/k/a Luis Edwardo Correa), a member of the Libertarian Party who has registered with the Federal Election Commission as a candidate for President in 2012 (F.E.C. Candidate ID #P20002135; Campaign Committee #C00480657 Mosheh For President), announced his intention to seek the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination in 2012. His slogan is "A Better Deal For America = Restore The Constitution!"
On his website, Mosheh Thezion writes:
In 1933, our servant, told us, that if we make the servant OUR master, that it can serve us better, but 80 years has shown that when the servant becomes the master, that servant becomes a ''tyrant'' over what was its master, the People and States and constitutional law.
We got ripped off by the NEW DEAL OF 1933, and I say...THAT DEAL IS OFF.
The Constitution must be restored, and anything less is un-acceptable.
As a candidate, when I win office, it will be my duty by OATH of office to uphold, defend and protect that Constitution, and I promise to do exactly that!
In conjunction with his announcement to seek the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination in 2012, Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion published the following letter:
My fellow Americans:
I run for President and seek the nomination because I believe that I truly understand what the American people need and want from the next President.
And that is not a HEAD OF STATE - we need a Head of Government.
Most candidates run as Head of State - they look good and make good speeches but that is all they do.
I run to be Head of Government, and sit in the White House and actually lead our nation to solution, and let someone else run around making lame speeches.
I offer detailed economic plans to save our sovereignty.
On my PLATFORM website, I explain, exactly what I will do, how I will do it, why I will do it, and why you all should be happy that I was able to do so.
I run for office, because I offer A LIST OF REAL DEMANDS, AND REAL DETAILED SOLUTIONS. (All of which I would do in my first Ten days.)
WE DEMAND TO PAY OFF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT, permanently.
--> http://mosheh.org/Currency.html
WE DEMAND TO RESTORE REAL COMMODITY BASED MONEY, and end the use of Fiat debt currency.
--> http://mosheh.org/Currency.html
WE DEMAND TO expand the E.D.D. and make it possible to provide true long term JOB SECURITY for all Americans, which will end all welfare programs.
--> http://mosheh.org/people-and-jobs.html
WE DEMAND TO establish a NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM, literally, to solve for the problems of debt, excess taxation, and economic debt slavery.
--> http://mosheh.org/Banks-47-Credit-Cards.html
WE DEMAND TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION as the rule of law as written, requiring amendments to grant powers.
--> http://mosheh.org/The-Constitution.html
WE DEMAND TO END THE MODERN FEDERAL RESERVE, and nationalize it, so that Congress may Audit/control and dismantle it as it sees fit over time.
--> http://mosheh.org/Excessive-Taxation.html
WE DEMAND TO Abolish the I.R.S. (Reduce or eliminate income taxes!)
--> http://mosheh.org/Excessive-Taxation.html
WE DEMAND TO restore true PROPERTY RIGHTS to all Americans.
--> http://mosheh.org/Property-Rights.html
WE DEMAND TO restore true constitutional Common Law Freedom!
--> http://mosheh.org/Freedom-and-THE-LAW.html
WE DEMAND TO set up deliberate long term FREE MARKET EXPANDING DEVELOPMENT GOALS, with the Military, the Banks, NASA, states, counties, and cities, as we work to transform our nation, and build up its infrastructure for the next several centuries.
--> http://mosheh.org/Fixing-the-Economy.html
WE DEMAND TO free our own nation from debt slavery, and providing the means for economic prosperity for the next several centuries, AND then work to lead the U.N. into a simple and clear economic plan, which will make it possible to actually END ALL WORLD POVERTY, and make money doing it.
--> http://mosheh.org/Message-for-Bankers.html
and...
WE DEMAND LEADERS WHO CAN GET IT DONE...AND NOTHING LESS.
I call it A NEW DEAL FOR 2012!
-- > http://mosheh.org/A-New-Deal_2012.html
I offer.. a TEN DAY PLAN... to get ALL OF IT DONE.
----> http://mosheh.org/THE-ISSUES.html
I run, because my nation needs me too.
-Mosheh Thezion
Libertarian Candidate for U.S. President in 2012
http://mosheh.org/Home.html
1-818-397-1352
campaign@mosheh.org
Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion (a/k/a Luis Edwardo Correa) was born in Queens County, New York and currently lives in Burbank, California. He was born July 16, 1969 at 12:36 p.m.. His parents were immigrants from Columbia although he claims to be "a mutt with Spanish, Portuguese, South American Indian and perhaps some unconfirmed Jewish blood".
On his website, Mosheh Thezion writes:
In 1933, our servant, told us, that if we make the servant OUR master, that it can serve us better, but 80 years has shown that when the servant becomes the master, that servant becomes a ''tyrant'' over what was its master, the People and States and constitutional law.
We got ripped off by the NEW DEAL OF 1933, and I say...THAT DEAL IS OFF.
The Constitution must be restored, and anything less is un-acceptable.
As a candidate, when I win office, it will be my duty by OATH of office to uphold, defend and protect that Constitution, and I promise to do exactly that!
In conjunction with his announcement to seek the Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination in 2012, Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion published the following letter:
My fellow Americans:
I run for President and seek the nomination because I believe that I truly understand what the American people need and want from the next President.
And that is not a HEAD OF STATE - we need a Head of Government.
Most candidates run as Head of State - they look good and make good speeches but that is all they do.
I run to be Head of Government, and sit in the White House and actually lead our nation to solution, and let someone else run around making lame speeches.
I offer detailed economic plans to save our sovereignty.
On my PLATFORM website, I explain, exactly what I will do, how I will do it, why I will do it, and why you all should be happy that I was able to do so.
I run for office, because I offer A LIST OF REAL DEMANDS, AND REAL DETAILED SOLUTIONS. (All of which I would do in my first Ten days.)
WE DEMAND TO PAY OFF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT, permanently.
--> http://mosheh.org/Currency.html
WE DEMAND TO RESTORE REAL COMMODITY BASED MONEY, and end the use of Fiat debt currency.
--> http://mosheh.org/Currency.html
WE DEMAND TO expand the E.D.D. and make it possible to provide true long term JOB SECURITY for all Americans, which will end all welfare programs.
--> http://mosheh.org/people-and-jobs.html
WE DEMAND TO establish a NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM, literally, to solve for the problems of debt, excess taxation, and economic debt slavery.
--> http://mosheh.org/Banks-47-Credit-Cards.html
WE DEMAND TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION as the rule of law as written, requiring amendments to grant powers.
--> http://mosheh.org/The-Constitution.html
WE DEMAND TO END THE MODERN FEDERAL RESERVE, and nationalize it, so that Congress may Audit/control and dismantle it as it sees fit over time.
--> http://mosheh.org/Excessive-Taxation.html
WE DEMAND TO Abolish the I.R.S. (Reduce or eliminate income taxes!)
--> http://mosheh.org/Excessive-Taxation.html
WE DEMAND TO restore true PROPERTY RIGHTS to all Americans.
--> http://mosheh.org/Property-Rights.html
WE DEMAND TO restore true constitutional Common Law Freedom!
--> http://mosheh.org/Freedom-and-THE-LAW.html
WE DEMAND TO set up deliberate long term FREE MARKET EXPANDING DEVELOPMENT GOALS, with the Military, the Banks, NASA, states, counties, and cities, as we work to transform our nation, and build up its infrastructure for the next several centuries.
--> http://mosheh.org/Fixing-the-Economy.html
WE DEMAND TO free our own nation from debt slavery, and providing the means for economic prosperity for the next several centuries, AND then work to lead the U.N. into a simple and clear economic plan, which will make it possible to actually END ALL WORLD POVERTY, and make money doing it.
--> http://mosheh.org/Message-for-Bankers.html
and...
WE DEMAND LEADERS WHO CAN GET IT DONE...AND NOTHING LESS.
I call it A NEW DEAL FOR 2012!
-- > http://mosheh.org/A-New-Deal_2012.html
I offer.. a TEN DAY PLAN... to get ALL OF IT DONE.
----> http://mosheh.org/THE-ISSUES.html
I run, because my nation needs me too.
-Mosheh Thezion
Libertarian Candidate for U.S. President in 2012
http://mosheh.org/Home.html
1-818-397-1352
campaign@mosheh.org
Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion (a/k/a Luis Edwardo Correa) was born in Queens County, New York and currently lives in Burbank, California. He was born July 16, 1969 at 12:36 p.m.. His parents were immigrants from Columbia although he claims to be "a mutt with Spanish, Portuguese, South American Indian and perhaps some unconfirmed Jewish blood".
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Quotations from"The Age Of Rand: Imagining An Objectivist Future World" by Frederick Cookinham (Part 1)
Dr. Tom Stevens, Objectivist Party Founder & Chair, has obtained permission from Frederick Cookinham, the author of The Age Of Rand: Imagining An Objectivist Future World, to reprint selected quotations from his book.
In this first installment, quotations were taken from the Introduction, Chapter 1 & Chapter 2. To enable you to research the context of each quotation, page numbers have been provided. These quotations do not necessarily reflect the ideas of Dr. Tom Stevens or the Objectivist Party.
If you like what you read, you can purchase the book at Amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/Age-Rand-Imagining-Objectivist-Future/dp/0595351530
Introduction
This is not a biography of Ayn Rand. Nor is it a learned treatise on her philosophic system, Objectivism. It is a speculation on what the world might be like if Objectivism catches on worldwide. (pg. 1)
I have been on a mission for thirty-seven years to dispel the stereotype of Objectivists as humorless, blue-suited atheist versions of Mormon missionaries. (pg. 1)
My interest is history, not philosophy. What has always fascinated me is the process by which ideas percolate through a culture and cause concrete changes. (pg. 1)
I will not go so far as to claim that the 21st century will be the Age of Rand, but I do not think it too reckless to say that it could be. (pg. 1)
It is tough to write about the future Age of Rand because there is simply no model for the triumph of a new moral system. It has never happened before. Every religion, philosophy and political system so far has included a re-hash of the moral system of Altruism. Without a model to guide us, we are flying blind into the future. (pg. 2)
The cultures of the world are merging into a single culture, due to the Internet, on top of radio and television and jet travel. Where Europe and America have been dominated by Christianity and the Middle East by Islam up to now, it is likely that some idea system, either a religion, a philosophy, or something, will soon come to dominate, not just a regional culture, but the emerging culture of Earth. To whatever extent Man moves into space, that move too will reflect some dominant view. Why not Objectivism? (pg. 2)
…an era of daily transformations of all our lives by technology will certainly favor a philosophy that celebrates science and invention. The message of this volume, then, is The Age of Rand may be coming. Join in preparing for it. (pg. 4)
I have capitalized the word “Objectivism” because it is the name Rand chose for her total philosophic system. In dictionaries, you will find it uncapitalized. Without the capital O it means the objective theory of reality, that is, the theory that when I close my eyes, the universe does not cease to exist, it goes on without me. That is the basis of Rand’s system, so she named the whole system after its most basic premise. (pg. 4)
Relating, integrating, finding the connections – between Rand’s past, present and future, her place in the lost perspective of history – that is the purpose of this book. (pg. 7)
Chapter 1
The Boy On The Bicycle
Rand wrote that the noble soul demands of himself that he be able to explain rationally his every thought, feeling and action. He makes sure of his facts before he opens his mouth. (pg. 11)
Face the facts! Set a goal and strive for it! The world makes sense, even if many of the people in it don’t. Your world makes sense if you do. Don’t panic! Cultivate your own garden! Make of your life a work of art! These are the messages of Ayn Rand. (pg. 12)
She was not well-informed. She got many facts wrong about the world outside her Murray Hill apartment. But she forged an iron chain connecting Aristotle’s laws of logic, Egoism, and free market economics. (pg. 13)
Anti-TribalThink TribalThink
In the 1960s, Nathaniel Branden was a young psychotherapist and Rand’s foremost protégé, and, for a while, her lover. After his break with Rand in 1968…Branden wisely said…“The Break” had been over a personal matter, not a philosophical one…And, he added, “The Break might even lead to good consequences, if it gets students to separate ideas from personalities. And if it gives them a feeling of being more on their own, so much the better”. (pgs. 13-14)
The Rand camp and the Branden camp have been completely on their own since Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982. On one side were Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, no longer married, but equally banished from Rand’s circle, and now, free of her spell, getting some distance and perspective on the whole experience. On the other side were Dr. Leonard Peikoff, heir to Rand’s money and copy-rights, and his fellow philosopher Dr. David Kelley: The keepers of the flame. Kelley would have his own Break from Peikoff in 1989, and this time it was over a philosophical difference. Peikoff founded the Ayn Rand Institute in 1985, and Kelley the rival Institute for Objectivist Studies (now called The Objectivist Center) in 1990. (pg. 14)
The Brandens did not, of course, dare to show up at Rand’s calling hours or interment, but I was there, at Kensico Cemetery in Valhalla, Westchester County, New York. There was a light snowfall and no wind as I stood in the crowd at her graveside, listening to Kelley read Rand’s favorite poem – Rudyard Kipling’s “If” – and to Peikoff as he said: “Ayn Rand wanted no stone. Her achievements are her monument. She changed the course of history, and those who knew her, or knew her through her books, loved her, and do….” (pg. 14)
What Rand’s circle of the 1960s discovered painfully over many years will be re-discovered by new generations of Rand readers – the need to make that separation between ideas and personalities. Hopefully, all the subsequent books about Rand will make it unnecessary for every generation to go through all the same process of disillusionment that the first did. Those who pick up and read Rand’s books after this point will be…spared exposure to all the mishigoss; the cultlike aspect of the Ayn Rand circle. They will benefit from the ideas of Rand without getting enmeshed in the personality of Rand. But there is enough, and more than enough, of that personality in her novels that the cult-joining personality – who will make a cult out of anything, even a philosophy of thinking for oneself – will still be attracted, through her novels, to what he will call the philosophy of Objectivism, but which is really a game of aping Rand’s personality, especially its aspect of heretic-hunting. (pgs. 14-15)
Chapter 2
Who Was This Rand Person, Anyway?
Ayn Rand was born Alice, or in Russian, Alisa, Rosenbaum on February 2, 1905. She came to the United States in 1926, took the pen name Ayn (rhymes with swine, she used to say) Rand, and started writing screenplays. She sold one to Cecil B. DeMille, but it was never produced. She wrote a play, Night of January 16th, which was produced in Hollywood and then on Broadway, in 1935. Moving to New York with her husband, Frank O’Connor…she oversaw a successful run for her play and then published her first novel, We The Living, in 1936…Her success came with her novel The Fountainhead, 1943, which became a Warner Brothers movie in 1949 starring Gary Cooper. She wrote a dystopian future fantasy novelette called Anthem, published in 1938, as a vacation from writing The Fountainhead. She labored for twelve years, 1945 to 1957, on her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. (pg. 22)
Rand put that new philosophical system very succinctly when one of the Random House salesmen asked her, at a pre-publication sales conference, “Can you explain your philosophy while standing on one foot?” She replied by naming the four main branches of philosophy and giving a one-or two-word summary of her position in each: “Metaphysics: objective reality. Epistemology: reason. Ethics: self-interest. Politics: Capitalism”. (pg. 23)
Go to www.nathanielbranden.net and he will explain the problem with Rand’s use of the word “capitalism” to describe her politics. In Jefferson’s time, the word for Rand’s politics and Jefferson’s was “liberal”. Today the word “libertarian” is gaining currency for the politics of severely limited government, and of free enterprise. (pg. 23)
This ethical system of Rand’s is not about sacrifice of one person to another, or cheating, or the pious hypocrisy of telling the other guy you are doing him a favor when you aren’t. It is about two people who respect each other, and who both reject the ethics of Altruism and self-sacrifice. (pg. 24)
Respect. No illusions. No cheating or favors or lies, but more than that: no perceived need for cheating or favors or lies. That is the result of two people respecting each other’s right to live for his own sake – and of knowing that rational people are of value to each other. (pgs. 24-25)
Branden (originally Nathan Blumenthal) had written Rand a fan letter in 1949, when he was nineteen. She invited him to write, then to call, then to visit, then, with his girlfriend Barbara Weidman, to read as much of the Atlas manuscript as she had written. Nathan and Barbara transferred from UCLA to NYU to finish their schooling, and Ayn and Frank followed them to New York. The Brandens were married in 1953, both taking, as their nom de plume for their expected future writing, the name Branden. (pg. 25)
In New York, Nathaniel and Barbara introduced a series of friends and relatives to Rand, and they all met at Ayn’s (thirty-six East Thirty-sixth Street) every Saturday night, to read and discuss each freshly completed chapter of Atlas. Leonard Peikoff, destined to inherit Rand’s money and copyrights, was Barbara’s cousin (and fellow philosophy student under Sidney Hook at NYU), and Joan Mitchell was her childhood friend. All three came from Winnipeg. (pg. 25)
Another member of Rand’s inner circle in those days, and later a fellow lecturer at NBI, was economist Alan Greenspan, who went on to become President Gerald Ford’s Chief Economic Advisor in 1974, and was made Chairman of the Federal Reserve System by President Reagan in 1987. Greenspan has taken some ribbing from “serious” economists for his former association with Rand, and for his articles in Rand’s magazine The Objectivist in favor of the gold standard and against the Federal Reserve System he later headed. Joan Mitchell was briefly married to him, and since then to Branden’s cousin and fellow Toronto native, psychotherapist Allan Blumenthal. Greenspan hailed from Washington Heights, Manhattan, but otherwise Branden had surrounded Rand with a sort of a Canadian Mafia. (pgs. 25-26)
She died in 1982, three years after Frank. She left her money and copyrights to Peikoff, by now a philosophy professor, who had stayed loyal to her after most of her old friends had (according to Barbara’s and Nathaniel’s books) gotten tired of putting up with her crankiness. (pg. 26)
Most of the intelligentsia probably hope she will simply be forgotten, as the writer of a couple of bad novels, a supporter of Wendell Willkie, Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, and as one of the “scoundrels” and “reactionaries” who persecuted those poor, dear, innocent Communists in Hollywood. (pg. 26)
Rand As Faust
Whether by accident or design on Rand’s part, though, she did end up with people around her who got more and more cult-ish as she got older. Today, these people make some breathtaking statements. Harry Binswanger, editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon and the number two man in the Peikoff faction, has said in public lectures that even We The Living was one of the greatest novels in world literature, there were no negative elements in Rand’s character, praise of Atlas is probably impossible because there is no greater thing to which to compare it, all Objectivists should re-read all of Rand’s books at least once a year, and Rand was a once-a-millennium genius. (pg. 29)
Sometime during Atlas’s notes-and-outline phase, January 1, 1945 to September 2, 1946, Rand got the integration bit between her teeth, and never stopped running with it for the rest of her life. (pg. 30)
After meeting Branden, she decided that she could integrate a lover into her marriage and see no contradiction. She had already decided that she could integrate Frank, who was not heroic, into her insistence that she could love only a hero, and see no contradiction. Then Ayn insisted to Nathaniel that the two of them would be totally honest with their spouses and clear the affair with them before beginning their beguine, after which the four of them had to lie systematically for years to their friends about their “design for living.” She somehow integrated the micro-honesty with the macro-dishonesty, and saw no contradiction. Her strength, and her weakness, was that she had become an integration junkie. (pg. 30)
The pity is that Rand wrote no more fiction after Atlas. She wrote a brief sketch of a new novel, with the theme of “unrequited love” (this was during her post-Atlas-partum depression, when Nathaniel was slipping away from her as a lover after the first lustful couple of years), but then she started writing articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and never made any progress on the novel. (pg. 30)
After being repeatedly reminded of her promise to write a full treatise on Objectivism some day, she reportedly said, finally, “Oh, can’t Leonard do that?” Years after her death, Peikoff did write the long-awaited treatise. But Rand neither wrote the technical philosophical stuff she was not professionally qualified to write (she had no Master’s in philosophy, or any other subject, let alone a doctorate), nor the possible novels that she was. If she had delegated the non-fiction to, first, Branden, and, after her break with him, Peikoff, and had turned back to fiction herself, and if she had written novels in a reasonable amount of time – not the twelve years of Atlas, but a year for each of a series of simple, non-philosophical novels (mysteries, perhaps; she liked those) then we could have had, between Atlas in 1957 and her death in 1982, as many as twenty-five new Ayn Rand novels! (pg. 31)
Branden…says, “Rand has a right to be wrong sometimes. No need to turn bitterly against her, like petulant eight-year olds who have just discovered that Mommy and Daddy are not the omniscient beings they thought they were”. That’s Branden’s leavening of the Rand message: the distance and perspective gained through painful experience. (pg. 32)
Objectivism will be Stone Soup – that’s the story about the three lost soldiers who ask villagers for food. The villagers refuse to give them any, so the soldiers tell the villagers that they will make stone soup. The villagers’ curiosity is aroused as they watch the soldiers gather stones and boil them in a vat of water. The villagers bring vegetables, spices, and other ingredients to add to the stone soup, and soon they are having such a good time preparing a feast for the whole village that no one notices that the soldiers have in fact contributed nothing to the soup but stones. The very fact of Rand’s having been nothing but a cult guru who didn’t know a thing about philosophy will itself be the best proof of her philosophy: she will have proved that a bunch of amateurs – her readers – could write our own philosophy, but tapping into the best within us. (pgs. 32-33)
From Kerensky To Reagan
She became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and cast her first vote in 1932: for FDR. He did run, it surprised me to learn, on the most conservative platform the Democrats had pushed in fifty years. In fact, he ran against the New Deal, not on it. Hoover was already “priming the pump”: making government loans to business, in the hope that business would hire the unemployed. It did not work when Hoover did it and it did not work when Roosevelt continued it under the name “the New Deal,” but it was that Hoover policy of pump priming that Roosevelt ran against. Then he got elected and continued it. (pg. 34)
Needless to say, FDR lasted about as long as Kerensky on Rand’s hero roster. Barbara Branden reports that Rand’s reason for her first vote was that Roosevelt was more “libertarian” than Hoover. (Later, that word became associated with a certain minor party, so Rand announced that it now meant…well, read Peikoff’s ally Peter Schwartz’s whole article “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty” in The Voice of Reason and see how many implications are now supposed to lurk in that word.) (pg. 35)
Wendell Willkie was an Indiana power company executive and a lifelong Democrat when he snared, in a political upset, the Republican nomination for President in 1940. Ayn and Frank took six months off to work full-time, unpaid, on the Willkie campaign. Rand made speeches and fielded questions in a theater in New York, and on the street, sometimes dealing with unfriendly crowds. When the campaign was over and Willkie had lost, Rand asked him why he had not taken a more outspoken stand on individualism, when he had written so well about it before. Willkie said “Individualism? Well, I’m for it.” And walked off. Rand experienced a “horrible shock of disgust.” (pg. 35)
In The Objectivist Newsletter, in 1964, Rand at first cautiously recommended Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater as a presidential candidate. But in later issues that year she reported that Goldwater’s message, like Willkie’s, was getting watered down. After Election Day, she gave her postmortem. She wrote that Goldwater, given a chance to speak from the highest platform in the world, the doorstep of the White House, had nothing to say. (pg. 35)
Then the Libertarian Party was formed, in 1971, and since Rand already knew Murray Rothbard, its intellectual godfather, and disapproved of his “Anarcho-capitalism,” she never had a good word to say about it. (pg. 35)
Along came Ronald Reagan. By this time, a very cautious “buy” signal was all Rand could manage. Even that lasted no longer than it took Rand to decide that, as an abortion opponent, Reagan clearly know nothing about rights, and would therefore disappoint Objectivists in all other realms sooner or later. By Reagan’s time, no mere ideological commitment to “small government” would have made any difference. Rand had been burned too many times by political alliances. (pgs. 35-36)
In a way, though, Rand’s political instincts were shrewd. It never pays to get mixed up with a minor party (look at their lack of a record of accomplishment), and it never pays a writer to get mixed up with any political group, because a writer cannot control a real-life group the way she can the fictional characters in her novels. Rand’s lifelong pattern in political involvement was disappointment and withdrawal. But what an impact it might have had if she had endorsed the Libertarian party and guided it, and lent it the hard-hitting polemical style she wielded elsewhere. Any political application of Rand’s ideas, though, will have to overcome the obstacle of the essentially apolitical mentality of the typical Rand reader. It is hard to build a John Galt movement, because John Galt just was not a movement kind of guy. Can you see Galt quitting his regular profession and running for office, like Arnold Schwarzenegger? Can you see him wearing a boater at a political convention, handing out leaflets on the streets, or asking pass-ers-by to sign a petition allowing a Libertarian Party candidate, or an “Objectivist Party” candidate, on the ballot? You may say that Galt is supposed to be a physicist, not a politician, but even in the Age of Rand, there will have to be some people who do decide on a career as a professional politician. We can’t all be physicists. This will be one of the big conundrums of any individual influenced by Rand, and of any Age influenced by Rand: to the extent that that Age takes the novels literally as guides to action, that Age will have a hard time producing all the different kinds of people it takes to make a world. Someone will have to find a way to look up to Galt as a role model and still content himself with a career as a politician, or a mortician, or a janitor, or any number of other un-Galtlike things. He will have to ask his parents and teachers and the resident philosopher in his local Objectivist Community Center how to reconcile his admiration for Rand’s heroes with his own penchant for shaking hands and making deals in the coatrooms of Congress. He will be told that the virtue of Galtishness lies not in what you do (within the Non-aggression Principle) but in how well you do it, and in your integration of your self-interest with the rights of others. (That is, legislate all you like, as long as you do not violate the Non-aggression Principle.) (pg. 36)
Fountainhead Author. Four Letters.
…a long historical perspective on Rand will place her, in your grandchildren’s eyes, firmly in the multi-thousand year trend toward secularism and toward inclusion of all Mankind in everything our peasant ancestors were excluded from, mainly wealth and decision making. (pg. 38)
Rand found homosexuality personally disgusting, but on a much more fundamental level taught that human life is about that which makes us human and not about that which divides us, like sexual orientation. So the revolution she started has outrun even what she herself would have been comfortable with, as any revolution worth its salt will do…The problems over Gay versus Straight, Male versus Female, White versus Black, and so on will be sorted out and the excluded will be included, because all these differences are trumped in the end by our common humanness – and no one should realize that more vividly than the reader turned on to philosophy by “the greatest salesman philosophy has ever had.” Philosophy, by definition, is about the human: the consciously chosen. (pg. 38)
At The Starting Gate
Will the twenty-first century be the Ayn Rand Century? She is poised to cash in on the near future’s reaction against religion. I can think of nothing better to give all religion a black eye than for a generation to associate religion with the kind of fanaticism that crashes planes into buildings…but only if people have something with which to replace religion. A man has to believe in something. Why not himself? (pg. 40)
Building a “Museum of Capitalism” is not the answer. It will, though, be of interest once the Age of Rand has arrived. And it may, if handled creatively, rouse some interest in the benefits of free competition among the young in the meantime. But if it is just about the tycoons of the past, who were always first in line for government subsidies, and who “externalized” their pollution and other costs of doing business on all of us, no. The audience has already seen its fill of portraits of dead while male tycoons…But what the people of the world want and need is millions of micro-loans, to start millions of micro-businesses that will grow and make everyone into something of a tycoon. Then build a museum to celebrate that process. Some libertarians are already on top of this phenomenon. African economist George B.N. Ayittey, in his book Africa Unchained, expresses high hopes for an Africa empowered by micro-credit, cottage industries and a new generation of better-educated and more results-oriented leaders than the last generation, with its simple faith in socialist revolution. And Alan Greenspan has recently said that many small banks are better than one big central bank, even from the point of view of each bank’s own bottom line: it seems that small banks investing in innovative companies can actually get a better return on their investments than big banks in a sluggish, politicized economy. If Objectivists are the ones to champion micro-loans, Objectivism will see growth to put Rand’s recent book sales figures to shame. The Ayn Rand Institute and The Objectivist Center will need Yankee Stadium for meetings. The New York Times will start having Objectivist opinion on the editorial page, not in the right-wing ghetto on the Op-Ed page. Here’s the place to start: Three organizations that make micro-loans and give their first leg up to the James J. Hills and Cornelius Vanderbilts and Bill Gateses of the future: Accion New York, the Trickle Up Program (www.vita.org/trickle), and the Grameen Bank (www.grameen-info.org). Muhammad Yunnus, an economics professor, started the Grameen (“Village”) Bank in Chittagong, Bangladesh in 1983. The bank makes loans as small as $50 in the poorest villages in Bangladesh and guides the borrowers through something like American investment clubs or Junior Achievement. In the chapters ahead, you will see how this relates to the Adversarial Principle and alternative institutions, how it acts as a counter to the socialist assumption of a government monopoly in every industry, and how it will become the winning strategy for a future Objectivist Party. (pgs. 41-42)
Rand is poised to cash in on the near future’s reaction against ethnic tribal-think…What does the Internet do, but encourage the individual to think of the whole world as his domain, for him to communicate with freely, and from which to buy, and to which to sell? What has ever subverted national borders and language barriers and ethnic prejudice like the Internet? What is the computer mouse but a symbol of individual choice? (pg. 42)
Even if Rand is seen as a dilettante in philosophy, or as an amateur, or even as a phony and cult leader, she still said certain things that needed saying. (pg. 42)
In this first installment, quotations were taken from the Introduction, Chapter 1 & Chapter 2. To enable you to research the context of each quotation, page numbers have been provided. These quotations do not necessarily reflect the ideas of Dr. Tom Stevens or the Objectivist Party.
If you like what you read, you can purchase the book at Amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/Age-Rand-Imagining-Objectivist-Future/dp/0595351530
Introduction
This is not a biography of Ayn Rand. Nor is it a learned treatise on her philosophic system, Objectivism. It is a speculation on what the world might be like if Objectivism catches on worldwide. (pg. 1)
I have been on a mission for thirty-seven years to dispel the stereotype of Objectivists as humorless, blue-suited atheist versions of Mormon missionaries. (pg. 1)
My interest is history, not philosophy. What has always fascinated me is the process by which ideas percolate through a culture and cause concrete changes. (pg. 1)
I will not go so far as to claim that the 21st century will be the Age of Rand, but I do not think it too reckless to say that it could be. (pg. 1)
It is tough to write about the future Age of Rand because there is simply no model for the triumph of a new moral system. It has never happened before. Every religion, philosophy and political system so far has included a re-hash of the moral system of Altruism. Without a model to guide us, we are flying blind into the future. (pg. 2)
The cultures of the world are merging into a single culture, due to the Internet, on top of radio and television and jet travel. Where Europe and America have been dominated by Christianity and the Middle East by Islam up to now, it is likely that some idea system, either a religion, a philosophy, or something, will soon come to dominate, not just a regional culture, but the emerging culture of Earth. To whatever extent Man moves into space, that move too will reflect some dominant view. Why not Objectivism? (pg. 2)
…an era of daily transformations of all our lives by technology will certainly favor a philosophy that celebrates science and invention. The message of this volume, then, is The Age of Rand may be coming. Join in preparing for it. (pg. 4)
I have capitalized the word “Objectivism” because it is the name Rand chose for her total philosophic system. In dictionaries, you will find it uncapitalized. Without the capital O it means the objective theory of reality, that is, the theory that when I close my eyes, the universe does not cease to exist, it goes on without me. That is the basis of Rand’s system, so she named the whole system after its most basic premise. (pg. 4)
Relating, integrating, finding the connections – between Rand’s past, present and future, her place in the lost perspective of history – that is the purpose of this book. (pg. 7)
Chapter 1
The Boy On The Bicycle
Rand wrote that the noble soul demands of himself that he be able to explain rationally his every thought, feeling and action. He makes sure of his facts before he opens his mouth. (pg. 11)
Face the facts! Set a goal and strive for it! The world makes sense, even if many of the people in it don’t. Your world makes sense if you do. Don’t panic! Cultivate your own garden! Make of your life a work of art! These are the messages of Ayn Rand. (pg. 12)
She was not well-informed. She got many facts wrong about the world outside her Murray Hill apartment. But she forged an iron chain connecting Aristotle’s laws of logic, Egoism, and free market economics. (pg. 13)
Anti-TribalThink TribalThink
In the 1960s, Nathaniel Branden was a young psychotherapist and Rand’s foremost protégé, and, for a while, her lover. After his break with Rand in 1968…Branden wisely said…“The Break” had been over a personal matter, not a philosophical one…And, he added, “The Break might even lead to good consequences, if it gets students to separate ideas from personalities. And if it gives them a feeling of being more on their own, so much the better”. (pgs. 13-14)
The Rand camp and the Branden camp have been completely on their own since Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982. On one side were Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, no longer married, but equally banished from Rand’s circle, and now, free of her spell, getting some distance and perspective on the whole experience. On the other side were Dr. Leonard Peikoff, heir to Rand’s money and copy-rights, and his fellow philosopher Dr. David Kelley: The keepers of the flame. Kelley would have his own Break from Peikoff in 1989, and this time it was over a philosophical difference. Peikoff founded the Ayn Rand Institute in 1985, and Kelley the rival Institute for Objectivist Studies (now called The Objectivist Center) in 1990. (pg. 14)
The Brandens did not, of course, dare to show up at Rand’s calling hours or interment, but I was there, at Kensico Cemetery in Valhalla, Westchester County, New York. There was a light snowfall and no wind as I stood in the crowd at her graveside, listening to Kelley read Rand’s favorite poem – Rudyard Kipling’s “If” – and to Peikoff as he said: “Ayn Rand wanted no stone. Her achievements are her monument. She changed the course of history, and those who knew her, or knew her through her books, loved her, and do….” (pg. 14)
What Rand’s circle of the 1960s discovered painfully over many years will be re-discovered by new generations of Rand readers – the need to make that separation between ideas and personalities. Hopefully, all the subsequent books about Rand will make it unnecessary for every generation to go through all the same process of disillusionment that the first did. Those who pick up and read Rand’s books after this point will be…spared exposure to all the mishigoss; the cultlike aspect of the Ayn Rand circle. They will benefit from the ideas of Rand without getting enmeshed in the personality of Rand. But there is enough, and more than enough, of that personality in her novels that the cult-joining personality – who will make a cult out of anything, even a philosophy of thinking for oneself – will still be attracted, through her novels, to what he will call the philosophy of Objectivism, but which is really a game of aping Rand’s personality, especially its aspect of heretic-hunting. (pgs. 14-15)
Chapter 2
Who Was This Rand Person, Anyway?
Ayn Rand was born Alice, or in Russian, Alisa, Rosenbaum on February 2, 1905. She came to the United States in 1926, took the pen name Ayn (rhymes with swine, she used to say) Rand, and started writing screenplays. She sold one to Cecil B. DeMille, but it was never produced. She wrote a play, Night of January 16th, which was produced in Hollywood and then on Broadway, in 1935. Moving to New York with her husband, Frank O’Connor…she oversaw a successful run for her play and then published her first novel, We The Living, in 1936…Her success came with her novel The Fountainhead, 1943, which became a Warner Brothers movie in 1949 starring Gary Cooper. She wrote a dystopian future fantasy novelette called Anthem, published in 1938, as a vacation from writing The Fountainhead. She labored for twelve years, 1945 to 1957, on her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. (pg. 22)
Rand put that new philosophical system very succinctly when one of the Random House salesmen asked her, at a pre-publication sales conference, “Can you explain your philosophy while standing on one foot?” She replied by naming the four main branches of philosophy and giving a one-or two-word summary of her position in each: “Metaphysics: objective reality. Epistemology: reason. Ethics: self-interest. Politics: Capitalism”. (pg. 23)
Go to www.nathanielbranden.net and he will explain the problem with Rand’s use of the word “capitalism” to describe her politics. In Jefferson’s time, the word for Rand’s politics and Jefferson’s was “liberal”. Today the word “libertarian” is gaining currency for the politics of severely limited government, and of free enterprise. (pg. 23)
This ethical system of Rand’s is not about sacrifice of one person to another, or cheating, or the pious hypocrisy of telling the other guy you are doing him a favor when you aren’t. It is about two people who respect each other, and who both reject the ethics of Altruism and self-sacrifice. (pg. 24)
Respect. No illusions. No cheating or favors or lies, but more than that: no perceived need for cheating or favors or lies. That is the result of two people respecting each other’s right to live for his own sake – and of knowing that rational people are of value to each other. (pgs. 24-25)
Branden (originally Nathan Blumenthal) had written Rand a fan letter in 1949, when he was nineteen. She invited him to write, then to call, then to visit, then, with his girlfriend Barbara Weidman, to read as much of the Atlas manuscript as she had written. Nathan and Barbara transferred from UCLA to NYU to finish their schooling, and Ayn and Frank followed them to New York. The Brandens were married in 1953, both taking, as their nom de plume for their expected future writing, the name Branden. (pg. 25)
In New York, Nathaniel and Barbara introduced a series of friends and relatives to Rand, and they all met at Ayn’s (thirty-six East Thirty-sixth Street) every Saturday night, to read and discuss each freshly completed chapter of Atlas. Leonard Peikoff, destined to inherit Rand’s money and copyrights, was Barbara’s cousin (and fellow philosophy student under Sidney Hook at NYU), and Joan Mitchell was her childhood friend. All three came from Winnipeg. (pg. 25)
Another member of Rand’s inner circle in those days, and later a fellow lecturer at NBI, was economist Alan Greenspan, who went on to become President Gerald Ford’s Chief Economic Advisor in 1974, and was made Chairman of the Federal Reserve System by President Reagan in 1987. Greenspan has taken some ribbing from “serious” economists for his former association with Rand, and for his articles in Rand’s magazine The Objectivist in favor of the gold standard and against the Federal Reserve System he later headed. Joan Mitchell was briefly married to him, and since then to Branden’s cousin and fellow Toronto native, psychotherapist Allan Blumenthal. Greenspan hailed from Washington Heights, Manhattan, but otherwise Branden had surrounded Rand with a sort of a Canadian Mafia. (pgs. 25-26)
She died in 1982, three years after Frank. She left her money and copyrights to Peikoff, by now a philosophy professor, who had stayed loyal to her after most of her old friends had (according to Barbara’s and Nathaniel’s books) gotten tired of putting up with her crankiness. (pg. 26)
Most of the intelligentsia probably hope she will simply be forgotten, as the writer of a couple of bad novels, a supporter of Wendell Willkie, Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, and as one of the “scoundrels” and “reactionaries” who persecuted those poor, dear, innocent Communists in Hollywood. (pg. 26)
Rand As Faust
Whether by accident or design on Rand’s part, though, she did end up with people around her who got more and more cult-ish as she got older. Today, these people make some breathtaking statements. Harry Binswanger, editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon and the number two man in the Peikoff faction, has said in public lectures that even We The Living was one of the greatest novels in world literature, there were no negative elements in Rand’s character, praise of Atlas is probably impossible because there is no greater thing to which to compare it, all Objectivists should re-read all of Rand’s books at least once a year, and Rand was a once-a-millennium genius. (pg. 29)
Sometime during Atlas’s notes-and-outline phase, January 1, 1945 to September 2, 1946, Rand got the integration bit between her teeth, and never stopped running with it for the rest of her life. (pg. 30)
After meeting Branden, she decided that she could integrate a lover into her marriage and see no contradiction. She had already decided that she could integrate Frank, who was not heroic, into her insistence that she could love only a hero, and see no contradiction. Then Ayn insisted to Nathaniel that the two of them would be totally honest with their spouses and clear the affair with them before beginning their beguine, after which the four of them had to lie systematically for years to their friends about their “design for living.” She somehow integrated the micro-honesty with the macro-dishonesty, and saw no contradiction. Her strength, and her weakness, was that she had become an integration junkie. (pg. 30)
The pity is that Rand wrote no more fiction after Atlas. She wrote a brief sketch of a new novel, with the theme of “unrequited love” (this was during her post-Atlas-partum depression, when Nathaniel was slipping away from her as a lover after the first lustful couple of years), but then she started writing articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and never made any progress on the novel. (pg. 30)
After being repeatedly reminded of her promise to write a full treatise on Objectivism some day, she reportedly said, finally, “Oh, can’t Leonard do that?” Years after her death, Peikoff did write the long-awaited treatise. But Rand neither wrote the technical philosophical stuff she was not professionally qualified to write (she had no Master’s in philosophy, or any other subject, let alone a doctorate), nor the possible novels that she was. If she had delegated the non-fiction to, first, Branden, and, after her break with him, Peikoff, and had turned back to fiction herself, and if she had written novels in a reasonable amount of time – not the twelve years of Atlas, but a year for each of a series of simple, non-philosophical novels (mysteries, perhaps; she liked those) then we could have had, between Atlas in 1957 and her death in 1982, as many as twenty-five new Ayn Rand novels! (pg. 31)
Branden…says, “Rand has a right to be wrong sometimes. No need to turn bitterly against her, like petulant eight-year olds who have just discovered that Mommy and Daddy are not the omniscient beings they thought they were”. That’s Branden’s leavening of the Rand message: the distance and perspective gained through painful experience. (pg. 32)
Objectivism will be Stone Soup – that’s the story about the three lost soldiers who ask villagers for food. The villagers refuse to give them any, so the soldiers tell the villagers that they will make stone soup. The villagers’ curiosity is aroused as they watch the soldiers gather stones and boil them in a vat of water. The villagers bring vegetables, spices, and other ingredients to add to the stone soup, and soon they are having such a good time preparing a feast for the whole village that no one notices that the soldiers have in fact contributed nothing to the soup but stones. The very fact of Rand’s having been nothing but a cult guru who didn’t know a thing about philosophy will itself be the best proof of her philosophy: she will have proved that a bunch of amateurs – her readers – could write our own philosophy, but tapping into the best within us. (pgs. 32-33)
From Kerensky To Reagan
She became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and cast her first vote in 1932: for FDR. He did run, it surprised me to learn, on the most conservative platform the Democrats had pushed in fifty years. In fact, he ran against the New Deal, not on it. Hoover was already “priming the pump”: making government loans to business, in the hope that business would hire the unemployed. It did not work when Hoover did it and it did not work when Roosevelt continued it under the name “the New Deal,” but it was that Hoover policy of pump priming that Roosevelt ran against. Then he got elected and continued it. (pg. 34)
Needless to say, FDR lasted about as long as Kerensky on Rand’s hero roster. Barbara Branden reports that Rand’s reason for her first vote was that Roosevelt was more “libertarian” than Hoover. (Later, that word became associated with a certain minor party, so Rand announced that it now meant…well, read Peikoff’s ally Peter Schwartz’s whole article “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty” in The Voice of Reason and see how many implications are now supposed to lurk in that word.) (pg. 35)
Wendell Willkie was an Indiana power company executive and a lifelong Democrat when he snared, in a political upset, the Republican nomination for President in 1940. Ayn and Frank took six months off to work full-time, unpaid, on the Willkie campaign. Rand made speeches and fielded questions in a theater in New York, and on the street, sometimes dealing with unfriendly crowds. When the campaign was over and Willkie had lost, Rand asked him why he had not taken a more outspoken stand on individualism, when he had written so well about it before. Willkie said “Individualism? Well, I’m for it.” And walked off. Rand experienced a “horrible shock of disgust.” (pg. 35)
In The Objectivist Newsletter, in 1964, Rand at first cautiously recommended Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater as a presidential candidate. But in later issues that year she reported that Goldwater’s message, like Willkie’s, was getting watered down. After Election Day, she gave her postmortem. She wrote that Goldwater, given a chance to speak from the highest platform in the world, the doorstep of the White House, had nothing to say. (pg. 35)
Then the Libertarian Party was formed, in 1971, and since Rand already knew Murray Rothbard, its intellectual godfather, and disapproved of his “Anarcho-capitalism,” she never had a good word to say about it. (pg. 35)
Along came Ronald Reagan. By this time, a very cautious “buy” signal was all Rand could manage. Even that lasted no longer than it took Rand to decide that, as an abortion opponent, Reagan clearly know nothing about rights, and would therefore disappoint Objectivists in all other realms sooner or later. By Reagan’s time, no mere ideological commitment to “small government” would have made any difference. Rand had been burned too many times by political alliances. (pgs. 35-36)
In a way, though, Rand’s political instincts were shrewd. It never pays to get mixed up with a minor party (look at their lack of a record of accomplishment), and it never pays a writer to get mixed up with any political group, because a writer cannot control a real-life group the way she can the fictional characters in her novels. Rand’s lifelong pattern in political involvement was disappointment and withdrawal. But what an impact it might have had if she had endorsed the Libertarian party and guided it, and lent it the hard-hitting polemical style she wielded elsewhere. Any political application of Rand’s ideas, though, will have to overcome the obstacle of the essentially apolitical mentality of the typical Rand reader. It is hard to build a John Galt movement, because John Galt just was not a movement kind of guy. Can you see Galt quitting his regular profession and running for office, like Arnold Schwarzenegger? Can you see him wearing a boater at a political convention, handing out leaflets on the streets, or asking pass-ers-by to sign a petition allowing a Libertarian Party candidate, or an “Objectivist Party” candidate, on the ballot? You may say that Galt is supposed to be a physicist, not a politician, but even in the Age of Rand, there will have to be some people who do decide on a career as a professional politician. We can’t all be physicists. This will be one of the big conundrums of any individual influenced by Rand, and of any Age influenced by Rand: to the extent that that Age takes the novels literally as guides to action, that Age will have a hard time producing all the different kinds of people it takes to make a world. Someone will have to find a way to look up to Galt as a role model and still content himself with a career as a politician, or a mortician, or a janitor, or any number of other un-Galtlike things. He will have to ask his parents and teachers and the resident philosopher in his local Objectivist Community Center how to reconcile his admiration for Rand’s heroes with his own penchant for shaking hands and making deals in the coatrooms of Congress. He will be told that the virtue of Galtishness lies not in what you do (within the Non-aggression Principle) but in how well you do it, and in your integration of your self-interest with the rights of others. (That is, legislate all you like, as long as you do not violate the Non-aggression Principle.) (pg. 36)
Fountainhead Author. Four Letters.
…a long historical perspective on Rand will place her, in your grandchildren’s eyes, firmly in the multi-thousand year trend toward secularism and toward inclusion of all Mankind in everything our peasant ancestors were excluded from, mainly wealth and decision making. (pg. 38)
Rand found homosexuality personally disgusting, but on a much more fundamental level taught that human life is about that which makes us human and not about that which divides us, like sexual orientation. So the revolution she started has outrun even what she herself would have been comfortable with, as any revolution worth its salt will do…The problems over Gay versus Straight, Male versus Female, White versus Black, and so on will be sorted out and the excluded will be included, because all these differences are trumped in the end by our common humanness – and no one should realize that more vividly than the reader turned on to philosophy by “the greatest salesman philosophy has ever had.” Philosophy, by definition, is about the human: the consciously chosen. (pg. 38)
At The Starting Gate
Will the twenty-first century be the Ayn Rand Century? She is poised to cash in on the near future’s reaction against religion. I can think of nothing better to give all religion a black eye than for a generation to associate religion with the kind of fanaticism that crashes planes into buildings…but only if people have something with which to replace religion. A man has to believe in something. Why not himself? (pg. 40)
Building a “Museum of Capitalism” is not the answer. It will, though, be of interest once the Age of Rand has arrived. And it may, if handled creatively, rouse some interest in the benefits of free competition among the young in the meantime. But if it is just about the tycoons of the past, who were always first in line for government subsidies, and who “externalized” their pollution and other costs of doing business on all of us, no. The audience has already seen its fill of portraits of dead while male tycoons…But what the people of the world want and need is millions of micro-loans, to start millions of micro-businesses that will grow and make everyone into something of a tycoon. Then build a museum to celebrate that process. Some libertarians are already on top of this phenomenon. African economist George B.N. Ayittey, in his book Africa Unchained, expresses high hopes for an Africa empowered by micro-credit, cottage industries and a new generation of better-educated and more results-oriented leaders than the last generation, with its simple faith in socialist revolution. And Alan Greenspan has recently said that many small banks are better than one big central bank, even from the point of view of each bank’s own bottom line: it seems that small banks investing in innovative companies can actually get a better return on their investments than big banks in a sluggish, politicized economy. If Objectivists are the ones to champion micro-loans, Objectivism will see growth to put Rand’s recent book sales figures to shame. The Ayn Rand Institute and The Objectivist Center will need Yankee Stadium for meetings. The New York Times will start having Objectivist opinion on the editorial page, not in the right-wing ghetto on the Op-Ed page. Here’s the place to start: Three organizations that make micro-loans and give their first leg up to the James J. Hills and Cornelius Vanderbilts and Bill Gateses of the future: Accion New York, the Trickle Up Program (www.vita.org/trickle), and the Grameen Bank (www.grameen-info.org). Muhammad Yunnus, an economics professor, started the Grameen (“Village”) Bank in Chittagong, Bangladesh in 1983. The bank makes loans as small as $50 in the poorest villages in Bangladesh and guides the borrowers through something like American investment clubs or Junior Achievement. In the chapters ahead, you will see how this relates to the Adversarial Principle and alternative institutions, how it acts as a counter to the socialist assumption of a government monopoly in every industry, and how it will become the winning strategy for a future Objectivist Party. (pgs. 41-42)
Rand is poised to cash in on the near future’s reaction against ethnic tribal-think…What does the Internet do, but encourage the individual to think of the whole world as his domain, for him to communicate with freely, and from which to buy, and to which to sell? What has ever subverted national borders and language barriers and ethnic prejudice like the Internet? What is the computer mouse but a symbol of individual choice? (pg. 42)
Even if Rand is seen as a dilettante in philosophy, or as an amateur, or even as a phony and cult leader, she still said certain things that needed saying. (pg. 42)