When I was a pre-teen, I recall forming a club with a few friends.  One of our favorite activities, so far as I can remember, was kicking each other out the club.  Ayn Rand had a similar club in NY.

Fast forward a few decades, and that's all in the past.  Now I join organizations that are serious about their missions and accomplishments, not petty infighting well described by the famous line "the fights are so vicious because the stakes are so low."  Or, at least, that's what I could hope, but apparently that hope was false.

Do you know what the currently-running promo for Steele and Ungar is?  They usually run ads focusing on their theme of "we often disagree, but sometimes we agree, and we're always civil."  Currently they are illustrating that by running an ad with a voice-over about how they don't always argue, and clips of various discussions they've had about Gary Johnson and the LP, where they agreed - both were positive, both express a desire to have Johnson in the debates, and both demand that he be included in polls.  

Meanwhile, Julie Mason did a full hour on her show last week about the LP.  Smerconish just the other day did a poll question - who is most likely to be the next VP? - and prominently highlighted Weld when discussing the options.  (Side note:  Smerconish said this morning that he had invited Johnson and Weld to do an event with him and hadn't heard back, if someone can pass that message on to the campaign.)

The nation is crying out for more options.  Disgust with the 2 criminal parties has never been higher.  Polling data shows that people want a more tolerant social policy (not more liberal) and a more responsible fiscal policy (not more conservative).  Meanwhile, those in office, and the candidates from the criminal parties, continue to push for more control and less tolerance, every chance they get.  I oppose most gun control measures, as do we all, but I'm far more concerned about current attempts to push for the elimination of due process - which is the only way to get the right on board with gun control: tie it into destruction of rights for the accused, or to hatred of whatever group it is in vogue to hate.  Every event is immediately answered with loud debate over whose rights to take away, and how.  

This is the perfect storm - a disparity between the rulers and the ruled, a social milieu coming our direction, anger at the status quo.  It is our job, as a board, to position that party to ride the current interest past the Presidential election.  We have to turn the roof that is being blown at us into a foundation without letting our walls collapse.  This is important work, it is hard work, and it requires our primary attention.  However, it is getting short shrift.  To an extent, this is understandable, since we have time-critical ballot access concerns that are keeping most of us, thankfully, away from our keyboards and out doing productive things.  It is less understandable if we're going to set aside board governance tasks for...whatever this is.

As Caryn said, I see little to nothing here that has anything to do with the LNC.  Although few have noticed (cough), there's some disagreement about how to handle certain other states.  We can all agree on one fundamental premise, though - the LNC has nothing to say, other than to disaffiliate a party, about the internal affairs of an affiliate that do not impact the affiliate's relationship with the LNC.  Nothing that I can see here has any bearing on the relationship between LA and the LNC.

There are two things, though, that I wish to comment on anyway.  First, I am offended to see Richard Brown described as "Republican Brown."  There are two implications here, both of them offensive.  Richard, who was the parliamentarian for our national convention and did a great job, is being labeled with his party affiliation, as a means of suggesting that he's some sort of infiltrator.  He is nothing of the sort, and this blatant attack on his professional impartiality is not just offensive, it also embarrassing.  The second implication is an attack on the parliamentary profession, implying that the politics of a parliamentarian color their advice.  This would imply that we have to always use Libertarian parliamentarians, which is crude and reductive.

Second, I have no idea why, among these complaints, is listed the fact that a campaign leader of some sort from another party felt that Wendy Adams was interfering with their campaign.  We get that all the time - they usually claim that we're messing things up for them by, well, existing.  Why on earth would this party ever be asked to censure someone for harming a campaign within a rival party - and with no evidence other than a complaint letter?

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
LNC,

A request has been made from Guy McLendon, a former LNC member and current LP member to put forth this motion to censure. In my role as a member of the LNC, I am forwarding this motion to be considered by mail ballot. I believe that it requires 3 additional cosponsors to go to a mail ballot. If you wish to cosponsor this motion for it to be considered by mail ballot, please indicate that to this list. The motion and supporting information follows:

*********************************************

 

Please motion on my behalf:  “Based upon evidence provided in the case ‘McLendon vs Hayes & Adams’, motion to censure Hayes for alleged blackmail, fraud and violations of the Libertarian principle of non-aggression, and to censure Adams for alleged violations of the Libertarian principle of non-aggression.”  Please forward this message to the LNC in its entirety with six attachments.

 

Blackmail definition:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blackmail

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blackmail

 

Fraud definition:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

 

When a LP member believes a credible risk is present that could threaten the integrity of our organization, and even the integrity of some aspects of our conventions, that member has a duty to blow the proverbial whistle.  It’s my hope that you, the LNC & our members don’t condemn this messenger for requesting a motion to censure.

 

Please consider these general questions about our organization when reviewing this material:

·         What's the value in having the pledge of non-aggression if we lack an internal judicial system capable of handling gross violations of the NAP against our own members?

·         Is the public court system the only recourse to LP internal victims?

 

There are features of our recent 2016 National Convention that I perceive as very troublesome, but at this time I have insufficient hard evidence upon which to issue a formal complaint.  However, in convention planning meetings & teleconferences bullying tactics such as elevated voice levels have the potential to improperly influence decision making processes.  Corroborating information is available upon request.

 

Please protect the integrity of the LNC, and our national conventions.

 

Respectfully yours in liberty,

Guy McLendon

Chairman Calcasieu Parish Louisiana




--

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org