Personal Freedom Party: ‘Tell Your Children! Fight The Menace! Kill The Devil! Save The Country!’

Via Liberty Lion:

On November 11, 2010, the Personal Freedom Party adopted the following Slogan:

Tell Your Children! Fight The Menace! Kill The Devil! Save The Country!

The phrase was used in the song “Reefer Madness” from Reefer Madness: The Musical, which is a musical satire of the 1938 cult movie classic Tell Your Children (now commonly referred to as Reefer Madness).

The Personal Freedom Party was founded by Dr. Tom Stevens on June 6, 2010. Its initial focus is to recruit candidates to run for pubic office in New York State as well as to seek out pro-liberty individuals willing to serve in leadership positions.

The Personal Freedom Party’s main objective is to run a full slate of statewide candidates in 2014 and to obtain 50,000 votes for its gubernatorial nominee so the party can obtain “minor party” status under the election law of the State of New York.

And from IPR comments on a previous post, Dr. Stevens says the following:

Regarding the Objectivist Party:

I am still running the Objectivist Party but even if the Objectivist Party of New York were to run a very aggressive and well-funded gubernatorial campaign in New York State in 2014, I have very little hope that effort could get the 50,000 votes necessary to obtain “minor party” status and hence, permanent ballot access for 4 years. I see that effort as more of an informational campaign.

However, I am very optimistic that a new Personal Freedom Party could garner 50,000+ votes if we run an effective campaign.

Regarding voting age:

The Personal Freedom Party has not taken a stand on what the voting age in New York State should be – only that it should be lowered.

Dr. Tom Stevens would support lowering the voting age in New York State to 14 and I certainly support lowering the drinking age to 18. In fact, I support a number of issues associated with Youth Rights.

Regarding Roger Stone, Kristin Davis and the Anti-Prohibition Party:

Roger Stone and Kristin Davis are not involved with my effort. The platform of the Personal Freedom Party was inspired by the Anti-Prohibition Party’s platform. I always prefer a positive name (Personal Freedom Party) than a negative one (Anti-Prohibition Party).

Kristin Davis’ campaign manager told me they dropped the idea of using the Personal Freedom Party name because they discovered I had been using it. They later dropped the Reform Party name after they received an e-mail from that party’s leadership. Since Kristin Davis used the Anti-Prohibition Party name and she is not involved at this point with my effort, I chose not to use the name she came up with.


Regarding LPNY:

If the party became “ballot qualified” and the party was open to all libertarians, I might participate in it but I don’t see that as probable. [..] It is always possible my political analysis in this respect is not correct. We shall see in a few weeks and if I am incorrect, I will be the first to admit it.

Regarding foreign policy and the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”:

Right now, the Personal Freedom Party is going to stick with the main issues it has identified in its platform. For example, it has taken a stand on the legalization of marijuana but does not comment on other drugs either way.

Being a New York State Party, it will probably not take a stand on foreign policy.

As for the Mosque, I can only speak for myself. I believe in the right of private property owners to decide what to build on their own property.

8 thoughts on “Personal Freedom Party: ‘Tell Your Children! Fight The Menace! Kill The Devil! Save The Country!’

  1. Steve

    I’m still failing to understand how a brand new party is going to succeed where an existing one with at least a modicum of activists, donors, and branding has not. Especially when “has not” consists right now of polling 45,000 votes instead of 50,000. From where does Dr. Stevens plan to get those votes? Would it not be easier to find an extra 5,000 Libertarian voters than 50,000 brand new “Personal Freedom” voters?

  2. paulie Post author

    I’m still failing to understand how a brand new party is going to succeed where an existing one with at least a modicum of activists, donors, and branding has not. Especially when “has not” consists right now of polling 45,000 votes instead of 50,000. From where does Dr. Stevens plan to get those votes? Would it not be easier to find an extra 5,000 Libertarian voters than 50,000 brand new “Personal Freedom” voters?

    I think the theory is that the issues around which they are planning to organize will be more popular than the broader ranger of issues the LP is pursuing.

    However, if that is the case, I wonder why didn’t Ms. Davis do better in the election than Mr. Redlich? She got quite a bit of press, had a compelling personal story, and was moderately famous even before running for office. What can the PFP do to improve on her effort?

  3. Dr. Tom Stevens

    The strategy for now is:

    1. Recruit candidates for statewide and cross-county Congressional office who start campaigning with as much lead time as possible building up local support.

    2. Recruit a high-profile gubernatorial candidate who will spend the ground-time meeting groups of potential supporters associated with the issues of the party.

    3. Focus on just the personal freedom issues that are more popularly associated with libertarianism.

    4. Avoid party infighting and eating our own alive in the months prior to the election.

    5. Press. Press. Press.

  4. pete healey

    It’s not I want to interfere in internal Libertarian politics, but you’ve already split so I can’t be to blame. Two separate “Libertarian” campaigns in New York pulled in almost 70,000 votes, and now a third “Libertarian” party wants to do better ?!?! Ok, if you say so.

  5. Jake_Witmer

    @7 Pete Healey:

    “The strategy for now is:”
    –try to divide the tiny-but-growing libertarian vote into an even tinier vote, thus serving the central bankers, warmongers, and prohibitionists.

    Tom Stevens is completely delusional. He is also a belligerent jerk who jumps to all kinds of insane conclusions when he talks to people, and then talks a bunch of smack about them behind their backs. (If you ever talk with him, record every word, and then play it later after you hear his account of the conversation. His account will not match your recording. It will reveal that he views reality through a mask of majorly muddled mental machinery, and cannot tell fact from his own fictional accounts of events.)

    I hope that clears up any confusion you have. Tom Stevens = jibbering, bonkers, _insane_.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *