Tag Archives: liberty

Beethoven’s Eroica: Is Tyranny Voluntary?

Recommended Film

Have you listened to Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony, the Eroica, lately? If not, you might enjoy giving yourself a little break from today’s little tyrannies and watch Beethoven’s Eroica – A film by Simon Cellan Jones – BBC 2003 . It’s free on YouTube, it’s beautiful, and the Eroica is well played.

Here we see in 1804, Prince Franz Joseph von Lobkowitz, a patron, hosting at his Vienna palace the first private performance of the Eroica. We hear discussions between the aristocratic guests, musicians, and servants respectively about the revolutionary musical path Ludwig van Beethoven took with Eroica. And we hear differing views on Napoleon Bonaparte, the original subject of this symphony.

As the symphony’s name suggests, the Eroica creates an audible image of struggle and heroic triumph — Beethoven’s view of Bonaparte.

In 1799, Bonaparte staged a coup d’etat, dissolved the Directory that ruled France and appointed himself first council. In 1804, Beethoven wrote the Eroica and dedicated it to Bonaparte.

Indeed, Bonaparte must have appeared at the time as bringer of order in midst of the chaos first brought about by the Reign of Terror and then by the ineffective Directory.

However, he also gave evidence of being a talented and ruthless opportunist by conquering most of Europe. When Bonaparte proclaimed himself Emperor, Beethoven changed the dedication of Eroica to his patron, von Lobkowitz.

Beethoven was able to turn his back on his former hero. All he had to do was erase Bonaparte’s name from the Eroica’s score and replace it with that of Lobkowitz. But the people of France and later most of the territory Napoleon Bonaparte conquered were not able to get rid of him so easily. His reign lasted until 1815.

Tyranny starts as voluntary

Voluntary tyranny sounds totally counterintuitive. But is it? Some of the world’s notable tyrants enjoyed popular support at the beginning of their careers.

Here are a couple of quotes that might explain the paradigm.

Recognizing a Tyrant To Be, Econlib.org, May 18, 2019

Everything is a matter of degree, and we should say that a ruler is a tyrant to the extent that he consistently favors a given part of the population against another, even if the law allows it.

Thus, recognizing a tyrant is not easy, especially before he has assumed full power. The process can be so gradual that most people may not see tyranny coming; only the last step may be obvious.

John Philpot Curran, The Speeches:

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

Be careful what you vote for, you might get it.

In Defense of the Governor’s Partying While We Dine Alone

California Governor Gavin Newsom has issued numerous directives, instructions and guidelines regarding COVID-19, all describing in great detail what residents of the state can and cannot do. One activity specifically verboten is partying indoors by members of several households. One suggestion especially idiosyncratic is wearing a mask while dining — admittedly a difficult scenario to visualize, leaving one to feel obliged to wear a mask between bites.

Therefore, California residents were justifiably confused when news broke that Governor Newsom on November 6, attended a dinner, along with several other guests, in celebration of the birthday of lobbyist Jason Kinney. The venue was the elite Napa Valley restaurant French Laundry.

Enter U.S. Congressman for California’s 4th District, Tom McClintock, a conservative Republican whose libertarian streak is known to liberty-loving communities. On November 19, on the House floor, Congressman McClintock delivered a speech in defense of Governor Newsom’s maskless cozy dinner.

The speech is must-read

Mr. Speaker:

I rise this morning in defense of Governor Gavin Newsom who recently defied his own idiotic Covid edicts as he partied at one of the few restaurants that he has not yet forced out of business. I defend him because he was doing what we all once did in a free society: make our own decisions over what risks we are willing to run and what precautions we are willing to take according to our own circumstances to protect our own health.

Yes, Covid is a nasty bug and a quarter of a million Americans have died while having it. But this isn’t the Bubonic Plague. The CDC’s best estimate is that if you are under 49, your chance for surviving Covid – it you get it – is 99.92 percent. Even for those over 70 the survival rate is 94.6 percent.

Forty percent who get it don’t even know they have it. Yet we have allowed our officials to ruin our quality of life over it – destroying countless businesses, throwing tens of millions into unemployment, robbing our children of their educations and shredding our most cherished rights as Americans.

Governor Newsom’s night of partying should be a wake-up call to every American.

Every time we step outside our homes, the risks we face multiply. A free society assumes that its citizens are competent to assess those risks, balance them against the avoidance costs, and to manage their decisions in a generally responsible way. It’s called common sense, and it’s a necessary prerequisite for self-government and liberty.

The choices of an octogenarian with emphysema might be very different from those of a healthy governor in California. Only a fool would claim the omniscience to make an informed judgment for every person in every circumstance in every community. Sadly, this crisis has revealed that fools abound in public office and that a fool with power can quickly become a petty tyrant.

Which brings us back to Governor Newsom. These government nannies love to tell us that they’re just following the science. What does the science tell us? It tells us that Covid poses virtually no risk to children but can be severe among the elderly. So, what did these lockdown leftists do? They closed all the schools and ordered infected patients into nursing homes!

The science tells us that outdoor transmissions of the virus are extremely rare and that 80 percent of infections occur in people’s homes. So what did these lockdown leftists do? They closed our beaches, parks and campgrounds and ordered people to stay at home!

The science tells us that obesity is a contributing factor to the severity of the disease. So what did these lockdown leftists do? They closed all the gyms and kept the liquor stores open!

These lockdowns haven’t saved lives. The states with the most stringent lockdowns generally have the highest mortality rates from Covid. Utah stayed open while next door, Colorado shut down. Utah currently has half the Covid mortality rate and 3/4 the unemployment rate as Colorado. But the lockdowns have cost countless lives from suicides, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and deferred health screenings and treatments.

Recently, Governor Newsom demanded that restaurant diners replace their masks after every bite, but also minimize the times they take them off. I guess that means take very big bites. Thanksgiving dinners are allowed in California, but only when they are held outside, guests are seated six feet apart, and they last no more than two hours. It’s all right to use the bathroom, but only if it is frequently sanitized. Otherwise, presumably you’ll just have to use the bushes. And for God’s sake – NO SINGING!

I have wondered how much longer the American people are going to tolerate this nonsense?

So let us not criticize Governor Newsom. Perhaps he has just offered us all deliverance from his own folly.

Nor should we criticize the California legislators who ignored travel and quarantine restrictions to junket to Hawaii. Nor should we ridicule Speaker Pelosi for choosing not to wear a mask in a hair salon that was forced to close for the rest of us.

Good for them. They’re demonstrating by their own actions the freedom that every American citizen needs to reclaim from these very same people. The governor SHOULD make his own decisions about running his own life. I only ask that he and his ilk would stop telling the rest of us how to run ours.

Rule Makers Need Not Be Inconvenienced

Congressman McClintock touched upon a truth that must not be ignored. Politicians often belong to elite circles that thrive in the acquisition of power. Their default modus operandi is “For your own safety and the safety of your neighbors, follow my rules.” There is no covenant that the rule maker follow those same rules. Power grows as constituents are rendered increasingly fearful and receptive to obedience in exchange for perceived protection. Rule makers need not be inconvenienced.

(Featured picture posted by Fox News)

Where You Need Antifa’s Permission to Speak

riot

Some articles succeed in presenting such a vivid picture of events readers feel they are witnessing the happenings themselves. Mimi Soros (no relation) and Catherine Hart wrote one such article, published in the California Political News & Views.

They were trying to attend a College Republicans event featuring Ann Coulter, and were blocked by Antifa and other left-leaning activists. This sad situation happened at the University of California Berkeley campus – once home of the Free Speech Movement – but it could have happened in any progressive-leaning town in the U.S.A.

We seem to be entering an age in which we will all need permission to speak.  Does it stop at speech?  How about needing permission to exercise our religious beliefs, to defend ourselves against intruders or attackers, to travel, what else?

Warnings From a Former Communist

Shen Yun

Report from the Trenches

On October 17, Meet Up Group Golden Gate Liberty Revolution hosted speaker June Gilliam, who shared her story with an audience of about 40 assorted conservatives, libertarians, skeptics, and ordinary seekers of truth. Ms. Gilliam called her presentation a Journey From Indoctrination To Awareness: From a Collectivist Mindset all the way to Conservatism, From Chinese Communist Patriotism to American Patriotism.

The presentation had much information about the nature of the Chinese Communist Party, repression of traditional culture and spiritual belief, pervasive indoctrination, and veiled cracks in the CCP’s economic edifice.

However, the main takeaway of the talk was a recommendation that members of the audience acquaint themselves with 4 items. Then spread the word about those items.

* Item 1: The Naked Communist, a book by Cleon Skousen (1958). Central to Skousen’s work are the 45 Communist Goals. A few of the goals might not entirely pass muster with libertarians, but some of the goals highlighted in the presentation are worth noting.

#15 Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
#17 Get control of the schools.
#20 Infiltrate the press.
#22 Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.
#29 Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step.
#30 Discredit the American Founding Fathers.

Readers can place a check mark “Done!” after the goals they feel have been accomplished.

* Item 2: Shen Yun. The website of this splendid show lists the “9 Characteristics of Shen Yun.” The very first is Reclaiming a Lost Heritage. Heritage, culture, spiritual experience needs to be anathema to any form of tyrannical government. A people steeped in any of these three attributes will more likely fight against tyrannical encroachment into their practices. Beautiful art uplifts the soul whereas tyranny aims to squash it.

* Item 3: Falun Gong. This spiritual practice, unsurprisingly, is also banned in China, for the same reason Shen Yun is banned. Here is a brief description from their website.

Falun Gong is a Buddhist-based practice of meditation and moral living. Although introduced to the public in China in 1992, its roots extend back thousands of years. Tens of millions of people practice in China. Falun Gong is also practiced in over 90 countries around the world.

* Item 4:  The Epoch Times. This weekly publication is both print and digital. It is published in the U.S., but carries a National and a China section. From their website:

The Epoch Times was founded in the United States in the year 2000 in response to communist repression and censorship in China. Our founders, Chinese-Americans who themselves had fled communism, sought to create an independent media to bring the world uncensored and truthful information.

Note: Whether The Epoch Times is published by Falun Gong, is pro-Trump, is banned on social media, or suffers from all the other ills the mainstream media ascribes to it is irrelevant to this present discussion. What is relevant is that the publication contains stories not likely found elsewhere that readers can see and then dig for some more information if desired.

Truth is Available to Those Who Dig For It

June Gilliam’s presentation on October 17 was riveting. Her message is that the acknowledged objective of Communism is global infiltration. In her view the infiltration in the U.S. is pretty much widespread in the guise of progressivism, socialism, democratic-socialism, or green deals.

A Word About Golden Gate Liberty Revolution (GGLR)

This San Francisco-based Meetup that hosted this presentation on Chinese Communism has over 700 members. It started as the Ron Paul Meetup Group in 2008. In those days weekly meetings were packed with folks of all shades of the liberty movement focused on helping garner voter attention for then Texas U.S. Congress Member and Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Today, the group meets monthly, the room is not packed. But the loyal liberty loving members, many going back to the days of Ron Paul precinct walks, do fill the room when from time to time GGLR presents a guest speaker. It has become an accepted fact that only quality speakers show up at GGLR.

Why Calvin Coolidge

Why Calvin Coolidge?

CoolidgeThese days we certainly hear a lot about Lincoln, Roosevelt, Obama, Trump.  How about Coolidge?

“Silent Cal,” so named because he spoke only when it was absolutely necessary, is admired by small-government advocates and ignored by central planners.  In his address delivered to the Holy Name Society, Washington DC, 1924, Coolidge expressed the ultimate liberty-leaning rule:

Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.

It is your serfdom or liberty.  It is your choice.  It is your vote.  Your vote puts candidates, good or bad, into office.  Your vote determines the laws under which you live.

Your vote also determines your take-home pay, how much of what you earn is available to purchase and invest by yourself and your family.  Here is another favorite Coolidge quote from his 1925 inaugural address,

The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager.


Does Political Correctness Have Limits?

The Difference

There is a world of difference between civility and political correctness (PC).  Civility is thoughtful behavior towards everyone.  PC is prescribed, agenda-driven speech and action that applies to some but not to others.  Civility comes from the inside, while PC is prompted from the outside.

Increasingly, PC is taking the place of civility.  PC harshly censors our speech, actions, and even thoughts.  Dare to call for discipline in a classroom, and the label of “privileged” soon follows.  Dare to criticize the work of a self-identified-female employee, the label of “sexist” immediately arises.  Oh, and calling anyone female or male without the qualifying “self-identified” borders on the self destructive.

The Advocates

Advocates of PC say they want to level the playing field, promote equality of outcomes, compensate for privilege.  At first blush, such objectives might even sound laudable.  But the problem is political correctness does not recognize limits.

The Example

Kurt Vonnegut’s short story Harrison Bergeron (1961) paints a world towards which PC advocates might be takings us all, a world in which the new and improved American Constitution prescribes complete equality for all.

In Vonnegut’s dystopian world nobody can be smarter, more talented or prettier than the rest.  Laws force people to wear “handicaps,” such as masks for the beautiful, sound to disrupt thought for the intelligent, and bags filled with lead balls for the strong and/or agile.

Here is Vonnegut’s idea of a domestic dialogue in the age of complete fairness:

“You been so tired lately — kind of wore out,” said Hazel.  “If there were just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls.  Just a few.”

“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George.  “I don’t call that a bargain.”…

“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it — and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else…”

The Consequences

And here is a concern related in an article on U.S. News.com about the downward trends of math and English scores as measured by college-readiness tests:

“Much more concerning, however, were readiness levels in math and English, which continued a downward slide dating to 2014.  This year [2018], math scores dropped to a 20-year low.”

“The news reignited concerns over whether there is a mismatch between what students learn in school and what college entrance exams ask of them, whether tests are an accurate barometer of college readiness, and — from an equity standpoint — whether the tests present an advantage to those with more means.”

Rich BoyHopefully colleges will not further waste parents and/or taxpayers’ money carrying out studies on whether “those with more means” have advantages over those without, since we all know that to be the case already.  Such advantages will always exist … that is unless legislators decide to really level the playing field by creating the position of “Handicapper General” as those in Kurt Vonnegut’s story did.


Looking for Free Education: Watch Hardfire TV

Hardfire TV 2

This is an interesting find, scholarly discussions on economics in lay-person’s language.  There are over 150 episodes on YouTube of Hardfire: Libertarian Issues in Focus, produced by Cameron Weber, PhD economics.

Dr. Weber is generally pleasantly soft spoken, which is a plus in today’s strident public dialogue. As the title of the show suggests, issues are discussed from a libertarian (versus collective or socialist) perspective.

Why is the Just Vote No Blog recommending this show? 

As a nation, we are in need of the basic education that allows us to competently fill out a resume, keep a financially sound household budget, point to where a country is located on a map, and assess the economic feasibility of what is proposed at the ballot box.  Some point to home schooling, charter schools, and on-line courses as a way for students to improve their chances of competing favorably in an increasingly complex job market.  Others point to free or low-cost life-long learning as a way for everybody to stay informed.

The trick is not only to find free or low cost instruction, but to avoid the echo-chamber trap of learning only what often agenda-driven groups prescribe.  One way to avoid this trap is to explore different sources of information.  It is good to listen to what Robert Reich (professor of public policy at U.C. Berkeley and partial to Keynesian economics) has to say, but counter that with what Thomas Sowell (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and partial to Chicago School economics) says.

Cameron Weber’s show represents instruction that is freely available as well as libertarian (free market) economics which today is less widespread than the liberal central planning.

An Example of a Hardfire Episode

On the segment of August 2, 2019, Dr. Weber discusses what at first glance borders on the heretical – Adam Smith, father of free market capitalism, called for non-market government intervention!  However, as Cameron Weber explains, this apparent contradiction is the result of Adam Smith’s discussion of two separate situations.

One situation describes economic relationships between individuals.  For example, you sell widgets and I know you for being an honest and knowledgeable maker of widgets, so I decide to buy widgets from you.  In this situation, the free market is the best judge of who are the most successful widget makers.  Adam Smith discussed this theme in one of his two principal books, The Theory of Modern Sentiment (1759).

The other situation regards not individuals but nations, thus the title of Smith’s other principal work, The Wealth of Nations.  Now, the free market must take second place to national wealth and security.  Any benefit that might accrue to individuals comes as a result of government-determined policies on manufacturing and trade that aim to make nations wealthy and secure.  Such policies according to Smith must include exceptions to the free market that protect 1) products used in national defense, and 2) infant industries.

From a libertarian viewpoint, the questions would be 1) are we really talking about national defense or imperialism, 2) do industry protections ever end once implemented, and 3) where does the line of protectionism end.

Sprinkled throughout this segment are explanations of mercantilism, social scores, analytic egalitarianism, and other interesting terms.

The Just Vote No Blog hopes you will enjoy this show and also watch a variety of points of views on economics, so much of it free of change on YouTube.

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body & mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.  Thomas Jefferson

Justin Amash Declared his Independence

Picture of Justin Amash

Fifth-term Congressman from Michigan Justin Amash declared his independence from partisan politics on July 4th. He made his announcement in an op-ed in the Washington Post, citing disenchantment with the present system and quoting George Washington’s warning regarding the detrimental influences of partisanship:

In recent years, though, I’ve become disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.

Washington said of partisanship, in one of America’s most prescient addresses: “… It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection…”

Indeed, we can clearly see the results of partisanship gone amok in our current constantly-bickering leadership.

As one of the 63 members of Congress elected as a result of the Tea Party Movement and as Chairman of the House Liberty Caucus, Amash is considered a conservative-libertarian. Perhaps he proved to be more of a libertarian in the tradition of former Congressman from Texas Ron Paul than a conservative in the Tea Party mold. Thus, Amash is not only out of step with Democrats, but also with conservative Republicans. Notoriously, he is the only Republican at present to support the impeachment of Donald Trump.

A recent exchange between five GOP Representatives working on a deal to bring a missile defense site to Fort Custer in Michigan and Justin Amash might provide insight where Amash stands regarding the powerful military-industrial complex.

The GOP Representatives highlighted figures showing the missile defense site could have an estimated $3.2 billion in economic impact, including 300 direct jobs and 1,800 support jobs; and Amash replied that the Defense Department is not a jobs program.

“It appears that Congressman Amash’s consistent opposition to all defense spending bills over the years was too much for the Pentagon to accept,” the statement from the five other members of Congress read. “It did not help and now they selected New York for the new missile defense site.” 

Amash replied in a statement released Friday that “taxpayer dollars for defense should be used to boost American’s safety, not to boost politicians,” he said. “The Department of Defense is not a jobs program.”  The Battlecreek Enquirer, June 28, 2019.

Perhaps Justin Amash is not leaving a political party but joining a growing number of equally disaffected voters who have no party affiliation. For clarification, citizens do not need to belong to a political party to be able to vote.

A pair of Nike sneakers

Unaffiliated voters are voting with their feet. They are registering their disdain for the current dysfunctional, bickering, do-nothing-productive two-party system that reflects the divisiveness we see in the general public. When so much focus is placed on the design of some (over-priced) sneakers, we are all in trouble.

 

 

4th of July: Hotdogs But No History?

On Thursday, communities across these United States will celebrate 4th of July with hotdogs and fireworks, but all too often without much understanding of what the Founding Fathers aimed to create when they signed the Declaration of Independence.

Understanding requires objectivity, emotional stability, and perspective – all of which in short supply. Students do not study history objectively, people readily respond to sound bites and catchphrases, and single-minded views take the place of perspective of events. Thus, Thomas Jefferson has descended to the level of a mere slaveholder. Thus, schools call for the removal of statues and murals depicting our nation’s history. Once history is erased, there is no way to learn from it, or avoid repeating horrendous acts such as building an economy based on indentured servitude.

So, what is going on? Are voices calling Jefferson and Washington brigands uncovering ugly truths that need to be told, or do such voices represent another agenda?  Let’s compare what the Founding Fathers aimed to create vs. what today’s politicians want to do.

What the Founding Fathers Wanted

When leaders in the American Colonies decided to break with Great Britain, they were faced not only with a War of Revolution but also with a clean slate upon which to design a new nation. They did not wish another Britain or France, but a nation that embodied the ideals of individual liberty and self government. To do that, they needed to codify the ideas contained in documents that discussed such ideals. For example:  The Magna Carta (1215) spoke of curtailment of a King’s absolute power and of limited government.  In his Second Treatise on Government (1690), John Locke discussed natural rights that everyone is born with and the duty of government to protect those natural rights.

Revolutionaries like Thomas Paine (“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”) and Patrick Henry (“Give me liberty or give me death!”) are best known for the oratory that spread the word about Independence. George Washington led the War of Independence. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were the principal architects of the new nation. Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. All these and many more placed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to create a republic in which the individual was paramount, and government existed only to protect the natural rights of the people.

What Today’s Politicians Want

With few exceptions politicians today want unlimited government, an obedient populace that does not understand government is their servant not their master, and replacement of natural rights with civil rights.

But the words of those pesky Founding Fathers and that bothersome old U.S. Constitution are in the way. Give such politicians a chance and they will do away with just about every single word in the Constitution. However, since they feel that time has not yet come, best alternative is to crank out rules and laws that keep expanding the reach of government and malign those who called for limited government.

Have a Great 4th of July! Here is a Suggestion:

If you are having a 4th of July get together with family and friends, maybe take a moment to reflect on what you are celebrating.  If you want to frame your call for reflection with a topic du jour, pose the question: If you were a Founding Father creating a new nation out disparate colonies, how would you go about changing the structure of colonies whose economy was based on slave labor?

Would you visualize such an endeavor as challenging for the new Republic?  For example:  In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the importation of slaves into the colonies as an “abominable crime.” Delegates to the Continental Congress of 1776 removed that language and replaced it with ambiguous reference to “domestic insurrections” so as to ensure support for Independence from the Southern colonies. What would you have done instead?

Do you view individuals even possessing the best intentions to be fallible?  Do you see a comparison between the fallibility of today’s politicians who are unable to remedy tragedies such as homelessness and deaths from drug addiction with the fallibility of yesterday’s politicians who failed to end slavery in a rational and peaceful manner?

Enjoy your Independence Day!

patrick-henry-1775-granger

“Ballot Harvesting” in California

California is a one-party state. At present, that political party happens to be the Democrat Party. The party is so entrenched that its political views permeate all sectors of California living. The Just Vote No Blog is non-partisan, but liberty-leaning, and therefore categorically opposed to a political system dominated by only one set of views.

Liberty requires dialog, exchange of ideas, choices. Nothing resembling that exists in the Sunshine State. One way to change that status quo is for ordinary people to find the time, will, and courage to support alternative political parties, be they American Independent, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, or Republican.

When a group – any group – becomes entrenched, too powerful, then bad things happen. People start feeling emboldened to take questionable action. One example of such scenario is “ballot harvesting.” Ballot harvesting occurs when individuals, often associated with political organizations, go door-to-door and offer to pick up absentee ballots from voters and deliver them to the county registrar of voters. Often seniors and the disabled are targeted. Sounds like a caring thing to do, right? The problem is that there is no chain of custody for the ballot that gets picked up. What proof is there that the ballot was indeed delivered to the registrar of voters? What proof is there that the voters’ voice was heard at all at the polls?

Fighting the actions of entrenched power one law suit at the time is sometimes the only way to regain a measure of liberty. The Just Vote No Blog recommends you read this article on The California Political Review, Need Help to End Absentee Ballot Harvesting, by Steve Frank, published on April 29, 2019. These folks happen to support the Republican Party, but perhaps other political parties might want to join in their effort.  Here is what needs to happen for this step in ending ballot harvesting to succeed according to Steve Frank:

In California the attorneys are looking for the following type of Plaintiff and situations, for a proposed lawsuit. We need the information as quickly as possible.

  • If you gave your ballot to someone who came to the door, was it counted? Check with your registrar of voters
  • Were you harassed the last thirty days of the November, 2018 by unknown people coming to your door, day after day, demanding your absentee ballot
  • Did you receive an absentee ballot when you did not ask for it?
  • Did you get the name of the person or organization that was sponsoring the door to door pick up of absentee ballots?
  • Did someone offer to help you finish filling out your ballot?

If you have experienced any of the situations listed above, please consider contacting Steve Frank at stephenfrank@sbcglobal.net.

ChooseLibertyAccepting California’s status quo in order to simply get on with our lives is fine, but perhaps we might consider going beyond that and choosing liberty.  Perhaps we might consider taking action to change the that status quo.