The Unseen Effects of the Ammo Shortage

Frederic Bastiat’s famous essay, That Which Is Seen and That, Which is Not Seen, inspired Henry Hazlitt to write Economics in One Lesson, where he applied the lesson  of a careless boy breaking a window, and the net loss that resulted from it, to economic issues beyond the initial scope.  In the same way that Hazlitt applied the aforementioned  lesson to those issues, I will apply it to a market distortion present in today’s world: the shortage of ammunition created by an overzealous Department of Homeland Security.

I do not believe that the Department of Homeland Security has any intention of using the ammunition they bought in a massacre.  Taking such a rash action would have disastrous consequences and swell the ranks of citizens seeking to defend themselves and their property.  That the DHS has depleted the amount of ammunition that civilians have at their disposal is malicious enough of an action.

What is seen is that the DHS has more ammunition than they need – and that factories are working at capacity to churn it out – all the while prices of components have continued to increase as a result of civilian, military, and law enforcement demands.

What is not seen and rarely considered – except by those who are shooters – is that shooting is a perishable skill. While going to the range not only offers stress relief and a good time with friends, it’s also necessary to make sure that I can place my rounds where they need to be. In that I own firearms not only for hunting but also for self-defense, not being able to place rounds where they need to be can be a dangerous proposition to innocent bystanders (if in public) or family members (if in my home). This is especially the case with new gun owners. While I have owned guns for multiple years, I only recently purchased a handgun and have only put 150 rounds through it, due to the shortage that in part was caused by the DHS’s purchase. While I feel comfortable with it, I am not yet proficient.

I am not alone in my story. The same situation is playing out with hundreds of thousands of other new handgun owners who may be permit holders or are seriously considering applying for one to defend themselves in public. What is not seen is that we are all anxious to carry for our self-preservation and, if need be, for the preservation of the lives of others – as has been done in many cases unreported by the national media. Concealed carry of firearms has been shown to deter crime. In a sense, the public depends on those who carry. Furthermore, the public depends on those who carry to be judicious in their marksmanship, something that they cannot do unless they are skilled in the use of those firearms.

The unseen in this situation will be seen. By then, it will be too late and the media will run with it like they did with Newtown. There will be new calls for legislation on the state and Federal level to ban the carry of firearms in public, but our government has a long history of unintended consequences that they later seek to “solve”.

My advice to new gun owners at this point in time is to buy ammunition when you can find it and to do dry fire practice (preferably with Snap Caps). Familiarize yourself with the nuances of the firearm and how it feels in your hand. Practice drawing it. In your home, have it where you can access it immediately, and have clear shooting lanes based on where the rooms of your family members are. While there may be an artificial shortage of ammunition, it can’t stop you from doing basic drills without having to shoot. Do these things and the unseen may remain unseen.

Hang Together

Too often I will see threads online where the substance of someone’s argument isn’t what is being discussed, but the person and their beliefs. At a time when the movement continues to grow, why are we focusing on what someone believes or doesn’t?  Why do we feel it is our place to call them out for their most personal decisions, especially in regards to their religious beliefs? This is the type of thing that keeps those on the fence from coming into our yard.

A little tact will go quite a long way in making friends and influencing people.  Condemning and criticizing those of certain beliefs is the last thing our movement needs. The whole point of political work and activism is to build bridges – not to burn them.  How likely will others be to work with someone who has attacked their personal beliefs? Their belief set may have been instrumental in leading them to the ideas of liberty.

Part of being a libertarian is accepting that you will have to work with many different people. I’ve worked with Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and people of many other creeds, or lack thereof.  I’ve worked with blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Indians, and people of many other ethnicities. When I met these people, the voice in the back of my head didn’t tell me to instantly attack them on their beliefs (or beliefs that I perceived them to have).  Respect is mutual to me, no matter who I’m working with. Nor do I collectivize like some do, something that is decidedly un-libertarian in nature.  Everyone is an individual. It is their character that should distinguish them, not their beliefs.

Categorical descriptors such as religion, one’s ethnicity or, one’s orientation are all things that should not determine the validity of one’s views.  God makes us what we are: equal human beings.  As equal human beings, we all possess the same capacity to reason, regardless of what deity we pray to or those aspects about ourselves that we cannot change, such as our ethnic backgrounds or those who we love.

I ask those who are guilty of such criticisms, regardless of who they are, to consider the big picture. Consider that we have to build bridges and not burn them down. We are a diverse movement, and we will continue to be more of one as our message spreads beyond borders and regions.  I’m not asking for you to lay down your beliefs or convictions, but to become more productive by working with people regardless of who they are.  On social networks, contribute to the discussion rather than lacing your responses with ad hominem attacks.

Working with many different people has opened my eyes and helped me in becoming a more capable leader.  People from different backgrounds, whether they be religious, ethnic, or socio-economic differences- all have much to contribute given ways they’ve done things in the past.  Integration of strengths is one of the best ways to overcome difficulties, regardless of the goals you have.


Do you want to win? Regardless of what field you are in (be it of the political, academic, or entrepreneurial variety), winning requires overcoming the petty arguments you may have based on someone’s differences.  In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “[w]e must hang together or assuredly, we will all hang separately.” We have too much in common in terms of our political, economic, and moral beliefs to focus on the little differences between us.

The Bible and Leadership

????????????????????????????????????????The Bible can teach us much about life, but most notably, it can teach us how to conduct ourselves as leaders of a young movement that needs guidance. Many of the historical figures detailed in the Bible, especially at the birth of a new and world-changing religion, Christianity, were themselves leaders of a young movement; leaders who were able to overcome obstacles  and led to the establishment of what has arguably been the most influential religion in history.

“[The] Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
-Matthew 28:20, New American Bible

While this is clearly an allusion to Christ’s death on the cross, it tells one of the greatest lessons of leadership.  As leaders in the movement, we should not seek for others to do things for us, but to do things for others.  As leaders, we should be willing to go out of our way, assist others with their activism goals, and apply our talents where others can use them in order to serve the movement.  Leaders, like Jesus, always seek to put other people ahead of themselves and deny material comforts, or comfortable complacency, for the greater good.  Not only does this aspect of leadership have an impact on the movement as a whole, but, if you abide by such a lesson, you will also be respected and relied on by many. You will also be seen as someone who is capable of many functions, which, in my experience, is one of the greatest feelings in the world.

“For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?”
-Luke 14:28, New American Bible

This verse speaks to one of my biggest problems with the movement as a whole; the assumption that things will come fast and be easy to accomplish. Calculating the cost of the tower refers to seeing the big picture. We must know how much work it will take to build our tower- with the tower being a metaphor for the political and academic influence in society.  As leaders, we should be able to see how much work we must put into a certain task to see fruition, whether that be an advocacy campaign for public policy or political campaigns at the local, state, or national level.  To not calculate costs may run you the risk of not completing the allegorical tower.

“Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.”
1 Timothy 4:12, New American Bible

The movement is full of those in their late teens and twenties. We are often told by those, whether they are older libertarians or older Republicans, that we are too young to be experienced enough to know about the world.  They often reference how many elections they’ve voted in and appeal to their age, not realizing that many of us have been involved since we were in high school.  This verse has often reminds me that, regardless of what others say, I need to remain involved.  I will not let them look down on me for my youthfulness, but will instead work more vigorously towards my goals to represent the movement in a honorable way.

The Bible is not merely a religious document, but a handbook for life and the many different aspects of life that face us on a daily basis.  It has provided inspiration for almost two thousand years, and will continue to do so as long as there are people who are open to its inspiration in their daily lives.

In Defense of Zoning Laws, Part II

As a result of my first article, In Defense of Zoning Laws, I was criticized by many people for my view that a local government should be able to regulate property within its jurisdiction given specific sets of variables that may affect the lives of adjacent taxpayers or residents. In this article, I seek out to refute those criticisms and make counterpoints in regards to them.

“Private lawsuits would not be zoning, but torts.”

I didn’t specifically mention that lawsuits would be the exact same as zoning.  My exact quote was that if I was to win a lawsuit against another property owner in a voluntary society over their use of property deleterious to me as an individual, it would therefore “[enact] a form of private zoning on the individual level.”  I believe the argument here is more based on semantics than any real difference in opinion.  Multiple lawsuits of this nature would set precedents, so, in a sense, they would become a patchwork of privately mandated regulations; a form of private zoning.

Another issue that those who disagreed with me raised was that local laws on zoning would be used to curry favor and capture market share, an issue I addressed in detail in my article, and mentioned how the zoning laws I was referring to- being based around the use of a property that could potentially affect a sensitive aquifer and the local infrastructure –  are not the type of zoning laws or licensing requirements brick and mortar restaurants have used as a weapon against the proprietors of food trucks in cities like Chicago or Washington, D.C.  In an area like McHenry County, Illinois, I hardly think that someone else with intentions to establish a horse-racing track, in an area that’s zoned predominantly for agriculture and not commercial use, has been pulling the strings of the local zoning board to potentially cease the activity at the Tomlin Road Raceway in order to enrich themselves. Therein distinguishes the difference between the zoning laws they mentioned (which I vehemently disagree with) and the zoning laws I made reference to in my article, which I feel are necessary.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, constitutional scholar states in his 2011 book It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong the following:

“Common law limits free use only when a use unfairly invades the property rights of others. The law calls this a nuisance.”

Among other things, doesn’t the contamination of groundwater in an agriculturally zoned area constitute an unfair violation of property rights, especially in that the neighbors of the proprietors of the horse track actually do farm and their crops could be affected?  Does the noise, light, and overflow parking not constitute as a nuisance?  Would the people who took issue with my stand on the issue still have the same disagreements if they knew all of the variables?

One last point I will make is that those who disagreed with me need to consider that local decision-making is much preferable to decision-making on the state or federal level.  Just as the Founders wanted the states to be laboratories of democracy under Federalism, shouldn’t localities be laboratories of democracy, as well?  Those who disagree with certain laws in regards to their ventures are free to vote with their feet to find a place more suitable to their needs, just as the proprietors of Tomlin Road Raceway should find a larger piece of land in an area that is zoned for commercial use.  In this way, capital can be allocated in a more economically sensible way based on how parcels of land are zoned given the local variables and infrastructure.

Realism Matters

The biggest difference between people who do effective political work and those who don’t is how they see the world. Theory, and thus ideology, are divorced from pragmatism. While Saul Alinsky is roundly criticized by those on the Right, he recognized this fact and many have successfully used his playbook in campaigns regarding politics and issue advocacy. Seeing the world for what it is now can enable you to one day see the world as you want it to be.

I believe in the precepts of anarcho-capitalism, and believe it would be the most ideal means of organizing society.  However, I need to preface my statement of belief with the fact that, while I believe in that type of a society, I’m realistic enough that I have not divorced myself from pragmatism. I see the world for what it is. Personally, I believe the best way to move liberty forward is through election to local, state, and Federal office and through public policy. I’ve been criticized for being involved with politics and issue advocacy, being told that I’m only legitimizing the system I claim to be against. In a sense, I’m being called a sell-out by fellow libertarians for trying to advance issues in the best way that I can, the way that I believe is the best means of success.

In no way am I demeaning the actions of those who are attempting to blunt the force of the state through academia; they should know as students of economics that division of labor is an important concept. We need people of all stripes to make an impact. I have learned much from those in academia. Did the Pauls, Justin Amash, and other seminal figures in our movement not learn from Rothbard, von Mises, and Hayek, which they have applied (in the pragmatic sense) to their careers at the national level? In that sense, I’ve also learned much about liberty and economics from those authors, learning which I hope to apply one day on a local, state, or federal level when I run for office. From latter-day authors like Gene Healy of CATO and Judge Andrew Napolitano, I have learned much about the abuses of power and law.  Those who teach and write books have just as much of a place in the movement as the statesmen I mentioned.

Just as we cannot all run for office, we also cannot all be academics. Academics have the principle of living theoretically- seeing the world as they want it to be and not for how it is. To this extent, I don’t fault them. They offer an important insight into what the world can be: if the right people advance the message and get policies passed that will incrementally advance us to that point.

Some of these academics do not appreciate that I’m not fully advocating Rothbard’s vision to potential voters. That’s not a pragmatic solution to the problem; voters are often people who grew up in a Democratic or Republican household, and that’s how they’ve always voted. To understand how to effectively communicate, one must understand who they’re talking to and how to stress different things that the voters value based on their income, their education, or their family situation.

Alinsky stated the following: “It does not matter what you know about anything if you cannot communicate to [the voters].” A one-size fits all statement of economic theory will not mesh with most people, as it’s nebulous and foreign to them.  While I realize most academics aren’t seeking to do political work, their input on what I’m doing is what Hayek referred to as the Knowledge Problem. Just as I try not to make judgment calls on the work they do (as I don’t know about it or have experience in it), they shouldn’t be making judgment calls on the work I do or how I go about doing it. The difference between us is how we view things. As someone who must work around voters who tend not to spend the time we do studying political science, economics, or law, I must see the world from the voters’ point of view to be able to communicate to them effectively.

While I believe in the idea of a voluntary society based on contract and not coercion, I believe the best way for me to go about achieving that is through the means of politics. For others to fault me for such a belief because their ideology blinds them to the big picture would be just as bad as if I was to criticize them for their involvement in academia. Both those in the political sphere and the academic sphere are important, but those who actively participate in the political sphere are able to do more to incrementally advance us to such a point where entrepreneurs and private businesses will build and own the roads.


I keep a loaded handgun on my nightstand.  I own other firearms, including a semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle, a Russian surplus bolt-action rifle, and a muzzleloader.  I’m a proud gun owner.  But my thoughts on Adam Kokesh’s “Armed March” into Washington, D.C. are those of disdain and embarrassment at being associated with certain people because the population tends to generalize a group like gun owners solely based on the most vocal proponents of the Second Amendment.

Kokesh’s march is not only politically stupid, but also illegal.  While I am a libertarian who appreciates civil disobedience, two groups of armed people, the marchers and the D.C. police forces converging, can lead to a confrontation that could lead to shots being fired and many being killed for one man’s self-aggrandizement.  An event like this would have further implications; the people who tend to have less sense about them may view this as a watershed moment to take actions themselves against law enforcement in their areas-  events which would have the potential to boil into civil war.  At the very least, the politicians who work there and the media would paint a picture of gun owners as unstable and non-law abiding citizens and provide an impetus to push through legislation that would be much more deleterious to our rights than the recent legislation that was defeated.

In the recent days, I have heard Kokesh’s march referred to as similar in nature to the acts of civil disobedience and the demonstrations orchestrated by the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Rosa Parks merely refused to leave her seat; she didn’t have a loaded gun or seek to initiate conflict. Her point was made through peaceful non-compliance. Had the marchers in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 carried loaded guns, there would have been much more than fire hoses turned upon them.

I admit that we do not truly have Second Amendment rights, as the Founders intended, today.  However, I will not go so far as to suggest that there is any reason whatsoever to hold such a controversial event. On the official event page for the event, there is talk of how this event could be a “Second American Revolution” and things such as that. Kokesh sees himself as a latter-day general or Founder, yet I don’t think he can even fathom how bad things had gotten in 1775 when the Revolution began militarily in earnest. While the tax rate is high, regulatory agencies are out of control, and our money, which many of us work to save, is being devalued, are there not political or economic solutions to these problems?  I do not see troops being quartered in my home. I do not see the government aiding the indigenous population with weapons and money to destroy my community. I do not see armies walking amongst the general population in a role reserved for civil administration.

Seeking to fight the U.S. government through a confrontation, as some attendees would like to see happen, is not going to go over well.  I see the comparisons to how insurgencies have defeated much greater forces and armies, especially in light of the American Revolution.  To start with, it was a more level playing field at that point in history.  While the Americans lacked a formal navy, they had manpower that often wielded a weapon superior to those the British carried in the Kentucky Rifle: the forerunner to today’s sniper rifles.  What they lacked in leadership and strategic thinking, they made up for with the use of attrition and light-infantry tactics, especially in the south where Colonel Francis Marion harassed Cornwallis’s troops and bought time for Greene and Morgan to fight significant set-piece battles that eventually led to the decisive victory at Yorktown.

The concept that a conflict between American citizens armed merely with rifles and whatever improvised devices they could conceive and the American military and law enforcement agencies armed with a modern navy, air force, armored divisions, and artillery would be easy is an idealized fantasy.  It would last for many years with great casualties on both sides and many civilians would needlessly die.

If Kokesh or his followers want a war, they picked the wrong century to wage it in. As for me, let it not be said that I did nothing to warn against such a precipitous action. For the sake of other reasonable gun owners and the liberty movement as a whole, I hope this event does not take place. I value human life, regardless of whether it’s the life of a demonstrator, a member of the law enforcement community, or a tourist who had nothing to do with the demonstration that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.


In Defense of Zoning Laws

Should a local government be able to tell property owners what they can and cannot do with their property?  I’d argue that in some cases, yes. In certain areas, reasonable restrictions should be made on what property can be used for. Even in an ideal anarcho-capitalist society, zoning would still exist in that if I didn’t like what my neighbor was doing, or if their behavior was adversely affecting me, I could potentially sue them, enacting a form of private zoning on the individual level. This, in part, is the argument for why pollution would be much less of a problem if everything was privately owned.

Take, for instance, the example of a friend of mine invoking the use of zoning laws for the safety of her community. There are those who have been staging horse races on a piece of land that is inadequate for that type of event, and the runoff resulting from such an event could affect her community’s drinking water. Do I find zoning laws acceptable in this case? Absolutely. As a community that is being affected by such activities, they have every right to make and enforce such laws.

Can zoning laws be abused by businesses to protect themselves from competition? Absolutely.  They have been invoked to defend entrenched interests. But zoning laws in regards to the case I’m referring to are necessary in the name of public safety and fiscal responsibility. Why should all of the taxpayers in the aforementioned community be forced to provide the infrastructure that would be necessary to host a spectator event like a horse race? Why should they be forced to repair the existing infrastructure or natural resources if they were to be damaged due  to their inadequacy, or vulnerability, as a result of this event?

Local zoning laws also give people the option to vote with their feet if they don’t like the laws in their jurisdiction. It is in the community’s best interest  to make zoning laws in regards to the situation within the locality and the type of business that can exist, given the infrastructure and geographical features. In the example I’ve mentioned, the horse track potentially puts the community in danger, given the inadequate infrastructure, the aquifer from which they get their water, and other external considerations that have a greater impact on the residents – impacts that do not solely affect the individual property.

As pragmatic libertarians, we should seek to see small localities empowered to make their own decisions, even if we disagree with those decisions. Ideology oftentimes blinds some people to necessities; until we have a working anarcho-capitalist society, zoning laws should exist, provided that it can be proven with multiple examples that public safety is endangered. Broad definitions are subject to abuse  by those who want to defend their market share, thus care need be taken to ensure that only the people directly affected have the say. While this seems somewhat idealistic, it is no more so than presuming that anarcho-capitalism will take root within our lifetime.

As Saul Alinsky said in his seminal work Rules for Radicals:

“As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be— it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.”

If at the local level, we can show people that small groups working together can bring about a favorable outcome for all parties in regards to reasonably limiting property rights based on public safety or local concerns, perhaps they can see the viability of what we want to change the world into.


Lessons Learned

The past three weeks, I was given the opportunity to work as a volunteer alongside the Indiana chapter of Americans for Prosperity to support Governor Pence’s proposed 10% income tax cut. I put close to twelve hundred miles on my van and probably walked thirty miles (while literature dropping) during the time I spent with them. The majority of the time I spent, I participated in both targeted and saturation literature dropping, something that sounds rudimentary, but has many finer points. I learned valuable lessons during my involvement which, although occasionally targeted at literature dropping and canvassing, can be applied to many other facets of campaigns.

Take care of your feet: In the first week, I was wearing worn out shoes and socks and not taking care to keep my feet dry. As a result, I sustained blisters which slowed me down in the subsequent days of walking. This is one of the small details that makes a huge difference. Number and effectiveness should be stamped in the minds of every political activist or campaign volunteer. While I was seeking to remedy my blisters and keep from applying pressure to them, I wasn’t able to hit as many doors. In a game where one call to a legislator can make the difference in the passage of the legislation you are working for, your effectiveness is blunted. My advice is to do the following: wear shoes that are broken in but not broken down, wear socks that are new and provide enough cushion, use insoles where possible, and (one of the biggest aids) put talcum powder in your socks before you put them on. Doing this effectively blunts moisture and acts as a friction prevention tool. I neglected to take care of my feet and in doing so wasn’t able to do as much as I could have.

If you must work out, do it lightly: The night before I lit-dropped Rushville, a friend at the Y convinced me to do a high-intensity calisthenics circuit workout. Bad decision. I woke up the next day and every forward motion of my quadriceps was an effort. This did not bode well for walking up and down stairs. If you must work out, only do something your muscles have become accustomed to.

Where possible, drop literature at the door: From what I observed, people will notice literature better if it’s tucked into the door or door frame. Certainly, dissemination of literature given your time limitations or external factors (German shepherds in the yard)  might necessitate dropping in newspaper boxes, but this can be easily overlooked by residents, or as I learned during windy days, blow out and thus be wasted. It need be noted that in the axiom of number and effectiveness, effectiveness is half of the equation.

Be flexible: If there’s anything I’ve learned from my time in all of the political campaigns and more recently from the AFP work I’ve done, it’s that you cannot be picky about your accommodations or what you eat. Doing so will only serve to annoy others you work alongside and diminish morale, especially when the campaign is long term and if there are budgetary limitations.

Be receptive of anyone who is willing to work with you: Everyone has something to contribute if they’re willing to phonebank, canvass, lit drop, or serve as an ambassador to groups who share a similar interest. This is yet another thing that you cannot be picky about. Generally, those willing to volunteer have worked campaigns or been involved with similar work. They also give you considerable flexibility, especially if they come with a vehicle. Working campaigns where you must be in multiple towns on the same day means that one can never have enough modes of transportation. They also increase the effectiveness of your canvassing or lit-dropping by allowing more neighborhoods to be covered considerably faster.

Inclement weather: In my last week of work with AFP, there were multiple times I had to walk in heavy rain. This is something I learned to accept. Your top priority is certainly keeping the literature and materials dry (which can be done with a simple plastic bag), but you should also take care of yourself by having warm clothing, ponchos, and extra clothing, where applicable.

While these tips seem very minute in nature, they make a world of difference, especially in the light of the the number and effectiveness axiom. The big picture is comprised of small details like these; don’t overlook them.

Where Is The Republican Party?

A friend of mine recently asked in an article on her website: “Where is my Republican Party?”. In the last few weeks, I’ve observed where her Republican Party is.

I’ve been doing volunteer work for the Indiana chapter of Americans for Prosperity in the last few weeks in support of Mike Pence’s proposed 10% income tax cut, and, in that time, part of my job has been to meet with Republicans and Tea Party Republicans – something that has been quite eye-opening.

I’ve observed that the Republican Party and even the Tea Party elements within it are, unsurprisingly, aging. They see eye-to-eye with libertarians on some issues, but on other issues, they’re no better than the Democratic Party is, especially in regards to entitlement reform. A common refrain from the meetings I’ve attended has been something to the effect of:

“You’re so young! I wish we had more youth involved in politics, because your generation has a lot of decisions to make!”

Young people are involved in politics, yet most of them are involved in the Democratic Party: an entity that, regardless of its flaws and hypocrisies of its own, has still managed to market itself effectively to those 30 and under. Young people are also involved with the Libertarian Party, which, while politically ineffective, has also done a good job at marketing itself to young voters and activists.

To attract the youth, the Republican Party needs to stop chasing off those affiliated with Ron Paul or libertarianism – something that they’ve done a great job at, especially given how they treated the former congressman and his delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2008 and 2012.

I’m not asking for the Republican Party to embrace everything that I believe in, but to give those of us who have libertarian beliefs a place at the table. For too long, we’ve been marginalized. I personally have been told that I’m too young and lack the experience to fully understand politics, when I have in fact been a part of four political campaigns and one policy campaign. I’ve also been told that I’m too idealistic, and that I’ll eventually “wise up to reality”.

With such things being said to young people by older members of the Republican Party, is it any wonder why the Party is a club of aging baby boomers? The Party isn’t even trying to market itself to the youth- it has been chasing us off. We want to be a part of the political process and all they can do is be dismissive and unsupportive, which is not a way to make friends or influence people.

The young leaders of the Republican Party exist and are trying to make a difference; they just need to be assured that they can have a place at the table. Their thoughts and policies need to be considered and not merely laughed off. If this doesn’t happen, the Republican Party will continue to be irrelevant and eventually fade into obscurity.

Your Republican Party is currently aging, as I’m sure many know, yet, if the powers that be in the Republican Party decide to face reality, the Republican Party can market to, and gain, youth activists and leaders . Doing so will bring into the Republican Party young adults who have grown up working in campaigns for the Paul family or those who serve as committeemen and women, and have practical real-world experience, especially concerning the nuts and bolts of political work: canvassing, literature drops, and phonebanking.

We’ve extended the olive branch. Now it’s their decision whether to take it or leave it.