Dear LNC, The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me. If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different. What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we. Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?). After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping. He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping. Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us. Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now. As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell? "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about." They will hear that we agree with him: - Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win. Or we can say: "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted." He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP. This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws. I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior. Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he. Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back. I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws. Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership. -- Larry *Larry Sharpe* *The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.* http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup> https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage *https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>* *212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior. Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion? Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote: Dear LNC, The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me. If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different. What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we. Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?). After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping. He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping. Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us. Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now. As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell? "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about." They will hear that we agree with him: - Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win. Or we can say: "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted." He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP. This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws. I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior. Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he. Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back. I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws. Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership. -- Larry *Larry Sharpe* *The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.* http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup> https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage *https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>* *212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring* _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC - I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed. Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face. This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks. I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman. In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1 On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight@ gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Thank you for your input Steve. On difficult decisions of great import, my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld. As a representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra. If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a *representative* should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates. This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how I have handled my representation in the past. However, 10 days is not enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too trivial to the gravity of this motion. -Caryn Ann On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed.
Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face.
This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks.
I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman.
In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail .com> wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
From the historical email archives (emphasis added):
“If the LNC took the time to meet, debate, and vote on every idea that some member somewhere has, we'd be meeting every day. I do not think LNC members are obligated to put forward a motion that they don't even support just because one person asked them to. I think part of the job of being on the LNC is understanding what things are or are not productive uses of our time. It's not just about the time of the person putting forth the motion, but it is the time of 16 other LNC members, plus 8 alternates, and potentially some staff. Sometimes it is our job to thank the person for the suggestion but politely reject an idea brought to us.” --Alicia Mattson (September 16, 2016) “Alicia, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree. The number of members who actually try to get something heard is infrequent. If there were a deluge, you would have a point, and then I would encourage stricter minimum standards to be in place but there isn’t. And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it. If it got to be so much that this was even a concern on time, I would set stricter bars. But each motion I have brought has had merit, and I supported each one […] Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.” --Caryn Ann Harlos (September 16, 2016) “If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.” --Caryn Ann Harlos (May 18, 2017) Aaron Starr (805) 583-3308 Home (805) 404-8693 Mobile starrcpa@gmail.com From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:52 PM To: Libertarian National Committee list Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair Thank you for your input Steve. On difficult decisions of great import, my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld. As a representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra. If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates. This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how I have handled my representation in the past. However, 10 days is not enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too trivial to the gravity of this motion. -Caryn Ann On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote: Distinguished Leaders of the LNC - I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed. Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face. This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks. I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman. In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1 On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote: I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior. Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion? Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote: Dear LNC, The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me. If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different. What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we. Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?). After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping. He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping. Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us. Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now. As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell? "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about." They will hear that we agree with him: * Our veterans are murders * Our teachers are enemies * Our candidates are liars and trickster It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win. Or we can say: "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted." He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP. This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws. I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior. Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he. Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back. I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws. Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership. -- Larry Larry Sharpe The Neo-Sage Group, Inc. http://TheNeoSage.com/ https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage https://www.facebook.com/neosage 212-307-3545 Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
Yes indeed. I find it funny that you would seek to discredit me. *And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.* *Do you see "there can be some minimum bars"? In this case, a majority of my State Chairs. If I got a letter from majority of 2016 delegates I would do so as well.* *I believe that motions should be heard. If I didn't think this was of such momentous import, such as disaffiliating an affiliate, I would sponsor. I have done this numerous times. I have already emailed my State Chairs.* *This is pretty low Aaron.* *-Caryn Ann* On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com> wrote:
From the historical email archives (emphasis added):
“If the LNC took the time to meet, debate, and vote on every idea that some member somewhere has, we'd be meeting every day. I do not think LNC members are obligated to put forward a motion that they don't even support just because one person asked them to. I think part of the job of being on the LNC is understanding what things are or are not productive uses of our time. It's not just about the time of the person putting forth the motion, but it is the time of 16 other LNC members, plus 8 alternates, and potentially some staff. Sometimes it is our job to thank the person for the suggestion but politely reject an idea brought to us.”
--Alicia Mattson (September 16, 2016)
“Alicia, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree. The number of members who actually try to get something heard is infrequent. If there were a deluge, you would have a point, and then I would encourage stricter minimum standards to be in place but there isn’t. *And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.* If it got to be so much that this was even a concern on time, I would set stricter bars. But each motion I have brought has had merit, and I supported each one […] Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (September 16, 2016)
“If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. *This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process.* It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (May 18, 2017)
Aaron Starr
(805) 583-3308 Home
(805) 404-8693 Mobile
starrcpa@gmail.com
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:52 PM *To:* Libertarian National Committee list *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
Thank you for your input Steve. On difficult decisions of great import, my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld. As a representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra.
If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a *representative* should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days.
This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.
This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how I have handled my representation in the past. However, 10 days is not enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too trivial to the gravity of this motion.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed.
Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face.
This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks.
I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman.
In Liberty,
Steven M. Nielson
Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight@ gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks,
Patrick McKnight
Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
*Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
From emails to my State Chairs when there was a suggestion of a Motion to Censure Weld:
Notice: some indicia of member support. Notice: "nearly" any motion Meaning there might be some so outlandish or so momentous that an automatic co-sponsorship is not a given but almost always is a given. There can be some minimum bars of support depending upon the gravity of the motion. Is this what we have turned into? Biting and attacking the procedure of another region when I was attempting to explain my procedure? Truly amazed. Deeply, deeply disappointed in this tack Aaron. My first reaction was to co-sponsor as I do believe motions deserve hearings. But then I am answerable to my State Chairs, and decided that was a reasonable minimum bar of support. I await the direction of my state chairs. On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes indeed. I find it funny that you would seek to discredit me.
*And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.*
*Do you see "there can be some minimum bars"? In this case, a majority of my State Chairs. If I got a letter from majority of 2016 delegates I would do so as well.*
*I believe that motions should be heard. If I didn't think this was of such momentous import, such as disaffiliating an affiliate, I would sponsor. I have done this numerous times. I have already emailed my State Chairs.*
*This is pretty low Aaron.*
*-Caryn Ann*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com> wrote:
From the historical email archives (emphasis added):
“If the LNC took the time to meet, debate, and vote on every idea that some member somewhere has, we'd be meeting every day. I do not think LNC members are obligated to put forward a motion that they don't even support just because one person asked them to. I think part of the job of being on the LNC is understanding what things are or are not productive uses of our time. It's not just about the time of the person putting forth the motion, but it is the time of 16 other LNC members, plus 8 alternates, and potentially some staff. Sometimes it is our job to thank the person for the suggestion but politely reject an idea brought to us.”
--Alicia Mattson (September 16, 2016)
“Alicia, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree. The number of members who actually try to get something heard is infrequent. If there were a deluge, you would have a point, and then I would encourage stricter minimum standards to be in place but there isn’t. *And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.* If it got to be so much that this was even a concern on time, I would set stricter bars. But each motion I have brought has had merit, and I supported each one […] Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (September 16, 2016)
“If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. *This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process.* It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (May 18, 2017)
Aaron Starr
(805) 583-3308 Home
(805) 404-8693 Mobile
starrcpa@gmail.com
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:52 PM *To:* Libertarian National Committee list *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
Thank you for your input Steve. On difficult decisions of great import, my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld. As a representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra.
If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a *representative* should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days.
This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.
This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how I have handled my representation in the past. However, 10 days is not enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too trivial to the gravity of this motion.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed.
Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face.
This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks.
I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman.
In Liberty,
Steven M. Nielson
Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks,
Patrick McKnight
Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
*Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
And an email to a member. Hyper-literal stretching does not reflect on me. If someone brought a motion to resolve that lizard men control the earth, I would not co-sponsor automatically. If someone brought a motion to disaffiliate Florida (as was suggested on Facebook during another controversy) I would not co-sponsor automatically. This is how reasonable interpretation of language works, and I have been clear on that both here and in my communications to my region. On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
From emails to my State Chairs when there was a suggestion of a Motion to Censure Weld:
Notice: some indicia of member support.
Notice: "nearly" any motion
Meaning there might be some so outlandish or so momentous that an automatic co-sponsorship is not a given but almost always is a given. There can be some minimum bars of support depending upon the gravity of the motion.
Is this what we have turned into? Biting and attacking the procedure of another region when I was attempting to explain my procedure? Truly amazed.
Deeply, deeply disappointed in this tack Aaron. My first reaction was to co-sponsor as I do believe motions deserve hearings. But then I am answerable to my State Chairs, and decided that was a reasonable minimum bar of support.
I await the direction of my state chairs.
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes indeed. I find it funny that you would seek to discredit me.
*And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.*
*Do you see "there can be some minimum bars"? In this case, a majority of my State Chairs. If I got a letter from majority of 2016 delegates I would do so as well.*
*I believe that motions should be heard. If I didn't think this was of such momentous import, such as disaffiliating an affiliate, I would sponsor. I have done this numerous times. I have already emailed my State Chairs.*
*This is pretty low Aaron.*
*-Caryn Ann*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com> wrote:
From the historical email archives (emphasis added):
“If the LNC took the time to meet, debate, and vote on every idea that some member somewhere has, we'd be meeting every day. I do not think LNC members are obligated to put forward a motion that they don't even support just because one person asked them to. I think part of the job of being on the LNC is understanding what things are or are not productive uses of our time. It's not just about the time of the person putting forth the motion, but it is the time of 16 other LNC members, plus 8 alternates, and potentially some staff. Sometimes it is our job to thank the person for the suggestion but politely reject an idea brought to us.”
--Alicia Mattson (September 16, 2016)
“Alicia, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree. The number of members who actually try to get something heard is infrequent. If there were a deluge, you would have a point, and then I would encourage stricter minimum standards to be in place but there isn’t. *And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.* If it got to be so much that this was even a concern on time, I would set stricter bars. But each motion I have brought has had merit, and I supported each one […] Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (September 16, 2016)
“If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. *This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process.* It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (May 18, 2017)
Aaron Starr
(805) 583-3308 Home
(805) 404-8693 Mobile
starrcpa@gmail.com
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:52 PM *To:* Libertarian National Committee list *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
Thank you for your input Steve. On difficult decisions of great import, my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld. As a representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra.
If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a *representative* should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days.
This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.
This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how I have handled my representation in the past. However, 10 days is not enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too trivial to the gravity of this motion.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed.
Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face.
This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks.
I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman.
In Liberty,
Steven M. Nielson
Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks,
Patrick McKnight
Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
*Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
From May 30, 2016 post-convention LNC minutes:
“After citing a Facebook post made by Alicia Dearn about the reasons for her actions concerning the Vice-Presidential nomination, Mr. Vohra moved to rescind the nomination of William Weld as the Vice-Presidential nominee.”
From September 16, 2016 email:
“And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it.” […] “Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.” --Caryn Ann Harlos Based on someone else’s Facebook post, you thought a “minimum bar” on a subject “of such momentous import” was met for Arvin Vohra to put forward his motion to remove our Vice Presidential nominee from the ticket. Why should there be a higher standard for you to make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from the position of Vice Chair? Aaron Starr (805) 583-3308 Home (805) 404-8693 Mobile starrcpa@gmail.com From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 12:18 AM To: Libertarian National Committee list Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair Yes indeed. I find it funny that you would seek to discredit me. And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it. Do you see "there can be some minimum bars"? In this case, a majority of my State Chairs. If I got a letter from majority of 2016 delegates I would do so as well. I believe that motions should be heard. If I didn't think this was of such momentous import, such as disaffiliating an affiliate, I would sponsor. I have done this numerous times. I have already emailed my State Chairs. This is pretty low Aaron. -Caryn Ann On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com> wrote:
From the historical email archives (emphasis added):
“If the LNC took the time to meet, debate, and vote on every idea that some member somewhere has, we'd be meeting every day. I do not think LNC members are obligated to put forward a motion that they don't even support just because one person asked them to. I think part of the job of being on the LNC is understanding what things are or are not productive uses of our time. It's not just about the time of the person putting forth the motion, but it is the time of 16 other LNC members, plus 8 alternates, and potentially some staff. Sometimes it is our job to thank the person for the suggestion but politely reject an idea brought to us.” --Alicia Mattson (September 16, 2016) “Alicia, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree. The number of members who actually try to get something heard is infrequent. If there were a deluge, you would have a point, and then I would encourage stricter minimum standards to be in place but there isn’t. And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it. If it got to be so much that this was even a concern on time, I would set stricter bars. But each motion I have brought has had merit, and I supported each one […] Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.” --Caryn Ann Harlos (September 16, 2016) “If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.” --Caryn Ann Harlos (May 18, 2017) Aaron Starr (805) 583-3308 <tel:(805)%20583-3308> Home (805) 404-8693 <tel:(805)%20404-8693> Mobile starrcpa@gmail.com From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:52 PM To: Libertarian National Committee list Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair Thank you for your input Steve. On difficult decisions of great import, my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld. As a representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra. If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates. This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how I have handled my representation in the past. However, 10 days is not enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too trivial to the gravity of this motion. -Caryn Ann On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote: Distinguished Leaders of the LNC - I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed. Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face. This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks. I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman. In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1 On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote: I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior. Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion? Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote: Dear LNC, The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me. If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different. What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we. Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?). After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping. He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping. Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us. Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now. As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell? "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about." They will hear that we agree with him: * Our veterans are murders * Our teachers are enemies * Our candidates are liars and trickster It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win. Or we can say: "Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted." He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP. This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws. I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior. Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he. Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back. I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws. Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership. -- Larry Larry Sharpe The Neo-Sage Group, Inc. http://TheNeoSage.com/ https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage https://www.facebook.com/neosage 212-307-3545 Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
Because he has, in his discretion, the right to determine his minimum bar. I had the same group of delegates ask me- I told them that they should go their regional representative. They didn't have one. I referred them to Arvin. There was, in the context of convention, and the proximity of the event, a perfectly justifiable reason to bring it at a meeting that was happening right then. It was his discretion. I think a regional representative would be perfectly justified in not setting any bar. You really are stretching to attack me, and it is very odd. *Things happen not in isolation but in the totality of the circumstances. In those circumstances, he was perfectly justified. There is also the added issue of those states being region-less. They had little other direct representatives recourse.* I really wonder at your extreme interest in my reasoning and aggressive pursuit. -Caryn Ann On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com> wrote:
From May 30, 2016 post-convention LNC minutes:
“After citing a Facebook post made by Alicia Dearn about the reasons for her actions concerning the Vice-Presidential nomination, Mr. Vohra moved to rescind the nomination of William Weld as the Vice-Presidential nominee.”
From September 16, 2016 email:
“And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it.”
[…]
“Just like Arvin was *perfectly justified* in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos
Based on someone else’s Facebook post, you thought a “minimum bar” on a subject “of such momentous import” was met for Arvin Vohra to put forward his motion to remove our Vice Presidential nominee from the ticket. Why should there be a higher standard for you to make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from the position of Vice Chair?
Aaron Starr
(805) 583-3308 Home
(805) 404-8693 Mobile
starrcpa@gmail.com
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 12:18 AM
*To:* Libertarian National Committee list *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
Yes indeed. I find it funny that you would seek to discredit me.
*And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.*
*Do you see "there can be some minimum bars"? In this case, a majority of my State Chairs. If I got a letter from majority of 2016 delegates I would do so as well.*
*I believe that motions should be heard. If I didn't think this was of such momentous import, such as disaffiliating an affiliate, I would sponsor. I have done this numerous times. I have already emailed my State Chairs.*
*This is pretty low Aaron.*
*-Caryn Ann*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com> wrote:
From the historical email archives (emphasis added):
“If the LNC took the time to meet, debate, and vote on every idea that some member somewhere has, we'd be meeting every day. I do not think LNC members are obligated to put forward a motion that they don't even support just because one person asked them to. I think part of the job of being on the LNC is understanding what things are or are not productive uses of our time. It's not just about the time of the person putting forth the motion, but it is the time of 16 other LNC members, plus 8 alternates, and potentially some staff. Sometimes it is our job to thank the person for the suggestion but politely reject an idea brought to us.”
--Alicia Mattson (September 16, 2016)
“Alicia, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree. The number of members who actually try to get something heard is infrequent. If there were a deluge, you would have a point, and then I would encourage stricter minimum standards to be in place but there isn’t. *And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.* If it got to be so much that this was even a concern on time, I would set stricter bars. But each motion I have brought has had merit, and I supported each one […] Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (September 16, 2016)
“If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. *This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process.* It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (May 18, 2017)
Aaron Starr
(805) 583-3308 Home
(805) 404-8693 Mobile
starrcpa@gmail.com
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:52 PM *To:* Libertarian National Committee list *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
Thank you for your input Steve. On difficult decisions of great import, my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld. As a representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra.
If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a *representative* should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days.
This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.
This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how I have handled my representation in the past. However, 10 days is not enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too trivial to the gravity of this motion.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed.
Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face.
This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks.
I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman.
In Liberty,
Steven M. Nielson
Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight@ gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks,
Patrick McKnight
Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
*Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
How much time are you doing researching *me? *This is really really odd. -Caryn Ann On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Because he has, in his discretion, the right to determine his minimum bar. I had the same group of delegates ask me- I told them that they should go their regional representative. They didn't have one. I referred them to Arvin. There was, in the context of convention, and the proximity of the event, a perfectly justifiable reason to bring it at a meeting that was happening right then. It was his discretion. I think a regional representative would be perfectly justified in not setting any bar. You really are stretching to attack me, and it is very odd.
*Things happen not in isolation but in the totality of the circumstances. In those circumstances, he was perfectly justified. There is also the added issue of those states being region-less. They had little other direct representatives recourse.*
I really wonder at your extreme interest in my reasoning and aggressive pursuit.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com> wrote:
From May 30, 2016 post-convention LNC minutes:
“After citing a Facebook post made by Alicia Dearn about the reasons for her actions concerning the Vice-Presidential nomination, Mr. Vohra moved to rescind the nomination of William Weld as the Vice-Presidential nominee.”
From September 16, 2016 email:
“And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it.”
[…]
“Just like Arvin was *perfectly justified* in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos
Based on someone else’s Facebook post, you thought a “minimum bar” on a subject “of such momentous import” was met for Arvin Vohra to put forward his motion to remove our Vice Presidential nominee from the ticket. Why should there be a higher standard for you to make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from the position of Vice Chair?
Aaron Starr
(805) 583-3308 Home
(805) 404-8693 Mobile
starrcpa@gmail.com
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 12:18 AM
*To:* Libertarian National Committee list *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
Yes indeed. I find it funny that you would seek to discredit me.
*And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.*
*Do you see "there can be some minimum bars"? In this case, a majority of my State Chairs. If I got a letter from majority of 2016 delegates I would do so as well.*
*I believe that motions should be heard. If I didn't think this was of such momentous import, such as disaffiliating an affiliate, I would sponsor. I have done this numerous times. I have already emailed my State Chairs.*
*This is pretty low Aaron.*
*-Caryn Ann*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Aaron Starr <starrcpa@gmail.com> wrote:
From the historical email archives (emphasis added):
“If the LNC took the time to meet, debate, and vote on every idea that some member somewhere has, we'd be meeting every day. I do not think LNC members are obligated to put forward a motion that they don't even support just because one person asked them to. I think part of the job of being on the LNC is understanding what things are or are not productive uses of our time. It's not just about the time of the person putting forth the motion, but it is the time of 16 other LNC members, plus 8 alternates, and potentially some staff. Sometimes it is our job to thank the person for the suggestion but politely reject an idea brought to us.”
--Alicia Mattson (September 16, 2016)
“Alicia, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree. The number of members who actually try to get something heard is infrequent. If there were a deluge, you would have a point, and then I would encourage stricter minimum standards to be in place but there isn’t. *And yes, I do think Regional Representatives (I think differently of Officers) DO have an obligation to bring forth motions asked by members (there can be some minimum bars) even if they do not support it. I will ALWAYS follow that rule and it was a promise I made to my region, and they elected me on it.* If it got to be so much that this was even a concern on time, I would set stricter bars. But each motion I have brought has had merit, and I supported each one […] Just like Arvin was perfectly justified in bringing that motion to disqualify Weld at the post-convention LNC meeting though he didn’t support it.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (September 16, 2016)
“If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a representative should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days. *This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process.* It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.”
--Caryn Ann Harlos (May 18, 2017)
Aaron Starr
(805) 583-3308 Home
(805) 404-8693 Mobile
starrcpa@gmail.com
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:52 PM *To:* Libertarian National Committee list *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair
Thank you for your input Steve. On difficult decisions of great import, my position remains the same as it did back when people were urging me to disqualify our Presidential ticket or to censure Bill Weld. As a representative, there are some decisions that are referred to the persons who directly elected me and directly elected Mr. Vohra.
If a majority of Region 1 Chairs asked me to sponsor, I would do so. That doesn't mean I would vote for it. In order for me to consider voting for it (and it is just a consideration because I have deep reservations about over-reach and future unintended victims of LNC over-reach), I would do what I believe a *representative* should do. I would ask the Chairs and the delegates of Region 1 who elected Mr. Vohra. I don't take overturning the decision of the delegates to be my job or purview, at least not my sole job or purview. And there simply is not enough time in an email vote to do such a canvas, thus leading to an express abstention if this proceeds to email vote. I want to hear from the delegates, and I would need to hear from them in substantial support and that simply does not happen in 10 days.
This is not ad hoc for this. This has been my consistent position on all positions of import such as this, I have older emails on those past issues where I followed the same process. It requires 2/3 vote of the entire LNC to pass. I think it would be impossible to even reach all of the delegates from 2016 from Region 1 - people moving etc., so I would require a 2/3 approval of responding delegates.
This is what I believe is the right way to handle and is in line with how I have handled my representation in the past. However, 10 days is not enough time for me to do my duty, and I think an email vote is way too trivial to the gravity of this motion.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
I had originally voiced my opposition to a motion for removal, however strongly encouraged action by our Chairman to address the comments made by our Vice Chairman. Since that time there have been, as Mr. Sharpe noted, several further communications that have caused concern with my original position. The circumstances have since changed and as such my position of general neutrality has also changed.
Mr. Vohra holds a position of great influence when it comes to perceived positions of the national party. What he does while in this position, both "on the clock" or off, directly impact perception. It is a reality that every single one of us who hold a position of influence must face.
This body has an opportunity before it, nay an obligation before it to take an official position on such actions of those who hold the highest positions of influence within our ranks.
I am merely an alternate to Ms. Harlos, and as such I am not eligible to second the motion made by Representative McKnight. However, I strongly encourage a second and a vote by this body, and by doing so either support or oppose both the statements made and the subsequent actions taken by our Vice-Chairman.
In Liberty,
Steven M. Nielson
Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
On May 18, 2017 9:37 PM, "Patrick McKnight" < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks,
Patrick McKnight
Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
*Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to remove from office one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page. Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were not akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being too passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader should be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, "During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!? In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that could have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a veteran of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the harm caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was universally true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater service, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for that, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude. Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, "What if they held a war and no one showed up?" While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities should be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm not saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also "accessories to murder", one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera. Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all life. It can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing. Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this doesn't necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." * *The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards. On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote: Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
Our veterans are murders Our teachers are enemies Our candidates are liars and trickster It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
-- Larry
Larry Sharpe
The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
https://www.facebook.com/neosage
212-307-3545
<image001.png> Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well. I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its veterans. The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat, therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks, (during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without self-censoring. In Liberty, Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org 305-393-6412 On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to *remove from office* one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page.
Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were *not* akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being *too* passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader *should* be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, *"*During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. *To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." * How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!?
In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that *could* have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a *veteran* of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the *harm* caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was *universally* true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater *service*, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for *that*, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude.
Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, *"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"* While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities *should* be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm *not* saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also *"accessories to murder"*, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera.
Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But *the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us*, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all *life*. I*t can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.*
Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this *doesn't* necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
*"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."* *
*The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards.
On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* <image001.png> *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC - The gravity of the situation, the very substance of all arguments and opinion shared, demands action from the body resulting in an official stance and statement. Removing my opinion of the content of the arguments, it is the action and representation of the party that we have an obligation to address. It is simply stated: Are we (in all of our capacity as representatives of the LNC) obligated to conduct ourselves and our message in a manner that represents the position and intention of the Libertarian Party? Furthermore, if any member or group of members of this body conduct themselves in a manner that may impact, either positively or negatively, the status of the Libertarian Party do we not have an obligation to officially address such actions in rebuke or affirmation? Let the motion that has been made be seconded, and then let us enter into official record the argument of our position, and let us as a body bring closure to question of conduct of our leadership and members of this body. This is our opportunity to lead as elected officials of the LNC and to affirm our Code of Conduct as representatives of this Party. To address the removal - such a motion will only pass upon 2/3 vote. It is unlikely that Mr. Vohra will be suspended from his role as the Vice-Chair. However, this vote provides the opportunity to make a formal statement by this body on the very public actions, and our expectations. That is a statement needed, as I have held since this has come to pass. In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1 *Steven M. NielsonState Field Director - Johnson for PresidentRegion 1 Alternate to LP* *Former Chairperson 2015-2016,* *Libertarian Party of Washington State 360-662-6362 <360-662-6362>* On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila@gmail.com> wrote:
As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well. I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its veterans.
The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat, therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks, (during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without self-censoring.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org 305-393-6412 <(305)%20393-6412>
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to *remove from office* one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page.
Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were *not* akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being *too* passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader *should* be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, *"*During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. *To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." * How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!?
In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that *could* have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a *veteran* of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the *harm* caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was *universally* true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater *service*, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for *that*, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude.
Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, *"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"* While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities *should* be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm *not* saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also *"accessories to murder"*, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera.
Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But *the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us*, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all *life*. I*t can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.*
Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this *doesn't* necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
*"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."* *
*The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards.
On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* <image001.png> *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I have heard from a majority of the Region 1 Chairs in writing and they are opposed (5 directly opposed, some of them strongly so, and one undecided though leaning to disapproval if it is merely "for cause" which is our language), thus, I will not co-sponsor this motion. If it came to be sponsored by 4 total (it requires more than a second) and came to a vote, I would re-poll the State Chairs and then depending upon that result, personally write each Region 1 delegate from 2016. I have received overwhelming support for this methodology. The more informal input I have received from membership (either though email, calls, text, and other messages) has been split with no clear consensus. -Caryn Ann On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
The gravity of the situation, the very substance of all arguments and opinion shared, demands action from the body resulting in an official stance and statement. Removing my opinion of the content of the arguments, it is the action and representation of the party that we have an obligation to address.
It is simply stated: Are we (in all of our capacity as representatives of the LNC) obligated to conduct ourselves and our message in a manner that represents the position and intention of the Libertarian Party? Furthermore, if any member or group of members of this body conduct themselves in a manner that may impact, either positively or negatively, the status of the Libertarian Party do we not have an obligation to officially address such actions in rebuke or affirmation?
Let the motion that has been made be seconded, and then let us enter into official record the argument of our position, and let us as a body bring closure to question of conduct of our leadership and members of this body. This is our opportunity to lead as elected officials of the LNC and to affirm our Code of Conduct as representatives of this Party.
To address the removal - such a motion will only pass upon 2/3 vote. It is unlikely that Mr. Vohra will be suspended from his role as the Vice-Chair. However, this vote provides the opportunity to make a formal statement by this body on the very public actions, and our expectations. That is a statement needed, as I have held since this has come to pass.
In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
*Steven M. NielsonState Field Director - Johnson for PresidentRegion 1 Alternate to LP* *Former Chairperson 2015-2016,*
*Libertarian Party of Washington State 360-662-6362 <360-662-6362>*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Steven Nekhaila < steven.nekhaila@gmail.com> wrote:
As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well. I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its veterans.
The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat, therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks, (during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without self-censoring.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org 305-393-6412 <(305)%20393-6412>
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to *remove from office* one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page.
Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were *not* akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being *too* passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader *should* be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, *"*During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. *To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." * How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!?
In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that *could* have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a *veteran* of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the *harm* caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was *universally* true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater *service*, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for *that*, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude.
Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, *"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"* While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities *should* be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm *not* saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also *"accessories to murder"*, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera.
Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But *the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us*, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all *life*. I*t can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.*
Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this *doesn't* necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
*"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."* *
*The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards.
On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* <image001.png> *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
Apropos of nothing, just a reminder: The President of the United States may have provided classified information, possibly codeword classified, to the Russian foreign minister. A Congressman from his own party has broken with the pack and is openly discussing impeachment. A special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate the possibility that our President worked in concert with a foreign power to manipulate an election. This has the potential to destroy one of the two dinosaur parties. We will then have the choice of stepping up, or of living in a one-party country at the national level. Another reminder: On the eve of war, Great Britain removed its King for marrying the wrong sort of woman. Many people thought this was foolish. I urge this party to turn this political posturing towards the collapsing US government and Republican party, and to step away from the path of removing our leadership when we don't like what they say. I think Mr. Hayes has the right idea and I look forward to working with him. Joshua A. Katz On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com
wrote:
I have heard from a majority of the Region 1 Chairs in writing and they are opposed (5 directly opposed, some of them strongly so, and one undecided though leaning to disapproval if it is merely "for cause" which is our language), thus, I will not co-sponsor this motion.
If it came to be sponsored by 4 total (it requires more than a second) and came to a vote, I would re-poll the State Chairs and then depending upon that result, personally write each Region 1 delegate from 2016. I have received overwhelming support for this methodology.
The more informal input I have received from membership (either though email, calls, text, and other messages) has been split with no clear consensus.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
The gravity of the situation, the very substance of all arguments and opinion shared, demands action from the body resulting in an official stance and statement. Removing my opinion of the content of the arguments, it is the action and representation of the party that we have an obligation to address.
It is simply stated: Are we (in all of our capacity as representatives of the LNC) obligated to conduct ourselves and our message in a manner that represents the position and intention of the Libertarian Party? Furthermore, if any member or group of members of this body conduct themselves in a manner that may impact, either positively or negatively, the status of the Libertarian Party do we not have an obligation to officially address such actions in rebuke or affirmation?
Let the motion that has been made be seconded, and then let us enter into official record the argument of our position, and let us as a body bring closure to question of conduct of our leadership and members of this body. This is our opportunity to lead as elected officials of the LNC and to affirm our Code of Conduct as representatives of this Party.
To address the removal - such a motion will only pass upon 2/3 vote. It is unlikely that Mr. Vohra will be suspended from his role as the Vice-Chair. However, this vote provides the opportunity to make a formal statement by this body on the very public actions, and our expectations. That is a statement needed, as I have held since this has come to pass.
In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
*Steven M. NielsonState Field Director - Johnson for PresidentRegion 1 Alternate to LP* *Former Chairperson 2015-2016,*
*Libertarian Party of Washington State 360-662-6362 <360-662-6362>*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Steven Nekhaila < steven.nekhaila@gmail.com> wrote:
As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well. I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its veterans.
The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat, therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks, (during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without self-censoring.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org 305-393-6412 <(305)%20393-6412>
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to *remove from office* one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page.
Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were *not* akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being *too* passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader *should* be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, *"*During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. *To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." * How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!?
In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that *could* have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a *veteran* of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the *harm* caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was *universally* true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater *service*, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for *that*, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude.
Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, *"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"* While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities *should* be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm *not* saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also *"accessories to murder"*, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera.
Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But *the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us*, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all *life*. I*t can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.*
Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this *doesn't* necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
*"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."* *
*The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards.
On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* <image001.png> *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Wow, I am in seventh heaven! Now we are really getting somewhere thanks to Arvin rudely giving us a swift kick in the backside. I propose to celebrate the rebirth of the Libertarian Party as we begin the painful process of reexamining our core principles, our timid responses to the moral dilemmas imposed on us courtesy of the government with the permission of the majority and how we can thoughtfully respond to courageous attempts to get us off our intellectual posteriors. Excrutiating as it may be, I am ecstatic at the progress we are making now and the exciting potential for much more as we grow our party. And the timing is perfect as we build on huge gains and exposure achieved in the 2016 elections and prepare for exponential growth in 2018 and 2020. There is hope for the Libertarian Party after all! Thoughts? ~David Pratt On May 19, 2017 11:15 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
I have heard from a majority of the Region 1 Chairs in writing and they are opposed (5 directly opposed, some of them strongly so, and one undecided though leaning to disapproval if it is merely "for cause" which is our language), thus, I will not co-sponsor this motion.
If it came to be sponsored by 4 total (it requires more than a second) and came to a vote, I would re-poll the State Chairs and then depending upon that result, personally write each Region 1 delegate from 2016. I have received overwhelming support for this methodology.
The more informal input I have received from membership (either though email, calls, text, and other messages) has been split with no clear consensus.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
The gravity of the situation, the very substance of all arguments and opinion shared, demands action from the body resulting in an official stance and statement. Removing my opinion of the content of the arguments, it is the action and representation of the party that we have an obligation to address.
It is simply stated: Are we (in all of our capacity as representatives of the LNC) obligated to conduct ourselves and our message in a manner that represents the position and intention of the Libertarian Party? Furthermore, if any member or group of members of this body conduct themselves in a manner that may impact, either positively or negatively, the status of the Libertarian Party do we not have an obligation to officially address such actions in rebuke or affirmation?
Let the motion that has been made be seconded, and then let us enter into official record the argument of our position, and let us as a body bring closure to question of conduct of our leadership and members of this body. This is our opportunity to lead as elected officials of the LNC and to affirm our Code of Conduct as representatives of this Party.
To address the removal - such a motion will only pass upon 2/3 vote. It is unlikely that Mr. Vohra will be suspended from his role as the Vice-Chair. However, this vote provides the opportunity to make a formal statement by this body on the very public actions, and our expectations. That is a statement needed, as I have held since this has come to pass.
In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
*Steven M. NielsonState Field Director - Johnson for PresidentRegion 1 Alternate to LP* *Former Chairperson 2015-2016,*
*Libertarian Party of Washington State 360-662-6362 <360-662-6362>*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Steven Nekhaila < steven.nekhaila@gmail.com> wrote:
As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well. I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its veterans.
The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat, therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks, (during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without self-censoring.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org 305-393-6412 <(305)%20393-6412>
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to *remove from office* one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page.
Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were *not* akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being *too* passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader *should* be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, *"*During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. *To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." * How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!?
In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that *could* have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a *veteran* of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the *harm* caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was *universally* true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater *service*, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for *that*, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude.
Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, *"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"* While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities *should* be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm *not* saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also *"accessories to murder"*, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera.
Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But *the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us*, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all *life*. I*t can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.*
Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this *doesn't* necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
*"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."* *
*The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards.
On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* <image001.png> *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
As debate on this motion has begun, I will speak on it. The issue before us appears primarily one of strategy. I have not gone off platform, supported assault weapons bans, opposed the NAP, opposed business rights to serve or not serve customers, supported "revenue neutral" taxation, or supported government schooling. The issue is that I was, simply put, too rude for an effective strategy. My bluntness, in other words, is unstrategic. But the lessons of politics teach us otherwise. We can look at recent politics, in which the least polite, least apologetic person on earth was elected president. Or we can look at the rapidly growing groups on both the left and right that share blunt, anti-establishment views which they express unapologetically. From a strictly strategic stance, bluntness seems to work in politics today. It may turn off specific individuals who were brought in with messaging that traded a short term gain for a long term loss, but in terms of real, long term strategy that happens over an election cycle, not a weekend, I don't see any convincing proof that bluntness is unstrategic. But I'd also like to speak specifically about third party politics. The assumption appears to be that third parties must be overly meek, unwilling to hurt anyone's feelings, challenge anyone's world view, or go anywhere near anyone's cognitive dissonance. A third party cannot afford to, the argument goes, challenge a large scale immoral behavior done through a corrupted institution, because it lacks the political capital do do so. Reality disagrees. The last successful third party was also quite rude, and challenged America on an immoral behavior in which the perpetrators suffered from considerable cognitive dissonance. This immoral behavior was done by a large percentage of the population. It was the foundation for a major part of American culture, and that culture is still romanticized today, in movies like Gone With The Wind. The issue was slavery. The rude, blunt opposition to slavery gave the Republicans the presidency, and made that "third party" a dominant party. They opposed not only the act of slavery, but the perpetrators of slavery. Was their position divisive? Without question. The Republican position on slavery was as divisive as any position on any issue has been. It arguably lead to a civil war. But it was the moral stance, and history has shown it to be the strategic stance. Anyone met any Whig candidates lately? In Liberty, Arvin Vohra On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:05 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow, I am in seventh heaven! Now we are really getting somewhere thanks to Arvin rudely giving us a swift kick in the backside. I propose to celebrate the rebirth of the Libertarian Party as we begin the painful process of reexamining our core principles, our timid responses to the moral dilemmas imposed on us courtesy of the government with the permission of the majority and how we can thoughtfully respond to courageous attempts to get us off our intellectual posteriors.
Excrutiating as it may be, I am ecstatic at the progress we are making now and the exciting potential for much more as we grow our party. And the timing is perfect as we build on huge gains and exposure achieved in the 2016 elections and prepare for exponential growth in 2018 and 2020.
There is hope for the Libertarian Party after all!
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
On May 19, 2017 11:15 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
I have heard from a majority of the Region 1 Chairs in writing and they are opposed (5 directly opposed, some of them strongly so, and one undecided though leaning to disapproval if it is merely "for cause" which is our language), thus, I will not co-sponsor this motion.
If it came to be sponsored by 4 total (it requires more than a second) and came to a vote, I would re-poll the State Chairs and then depending upon that result, personally write each Region 1 delegate from 2016. I have received overwhelming support for this methodology.
The more informal input I have received from membership (either though email, calls, text, and other messages) has been split with no clear consensus.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
The gravity of the situation, the very substance of all arguments and opinion shared, demands action from the body resulting in an official stance and statement. Removing my opinion of the content of the arguments, it is the action and representation of the party that we have an obligation to address.
It is simply stated: Are we (in all of our capacity as representatives of the LNC) obligated to conduct ourselves and our message in a manner that represents the position and intention of the Libertarian Party? Furthermore, if any member or group of members of this body conduct themselves in a manner that may impact, either positively or negatively, the status of the Libertarian Party do we not have an obligation to officially address such actions in rebuke or affirmation?
Let the motion that has been made be seconded, and then let us enter into official record the argument of our position, and let us as a body bring closure to question of conduct of our leadership and members of this body. This is our opportunity to lead as elected officials of the LNC and to affirm our Code of Conduct as representatives of this Party.
To address the removal - such a motion will only pass upon 2/3 vote. It is unlikely that Mr. Vohra will be suspended from his role as the Vice-Chair. However, this vote provides the opportunity to make a formal statement by this body on the very public actions, and our expectations. That is a statement needed, as I have held since this has come to pass.
In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
*Steven M. NielsonState Field Director - Johnson for PresidentRegion 1 Alternate to LP* *Former Chairperson 2015-2016,*
*Libertarian Party of Washington State 360-662-6362 <360-662-6362>*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Steven Nekhaila < steven.nekhaila@gmail.com> wrote:
As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well. I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its veterans.
The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat, therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks, (during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without self-censoring.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org 305-393-6412 <(305)%20393-6412>
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to *remove from office* one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page.
Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were *not* akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being *too* passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader *should* be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, *"*During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. *To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." * How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!?
In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that *could* have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a *veteran* of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the *harm* caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was *universally* true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater *service*, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for *that*, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude.
Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, *"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"* While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities *should* be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm *not* saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also *"accessories to murder"*, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera.
Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But *the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us*, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all *life*. I*t can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.*
Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this *doesn't* necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
*"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."* *
*The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards.
On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* <image001.png> *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
Bravo, Arvin - well said. Your intellectual bluntness has served us well both internally and with our core Libertarian-leaning cousins, coupled with strategic, targeted and tested messaging techniques geared to the broader audience who are not yet acquainted with our principles and focused where the broader audience is in their struggles with the pervasive big government status quo. It is time for the Libertarian Party to mature beyond politically-correct platitudes aimed at obvious personal damage control that might make us feel more comfortable with our moral dilemma failings that you elevated our awareness on. However, those politically-correct squawkings fool nobody as Gary Johnson (love and trust Gary) learned to his chagrin during the 2016 campaign. None of us became Libertarians overnight and we are all still learning, thanks, Arvin, to your courage and intellectual fortitude in helping the Libertarian Party cope more honestly with our moral dilemma discomforts and mature beyond politically-correct platitudes. Thoughts? On May 19, 2017 1:13 PM, "Arvin Vohra" <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
As debate on this motion has begun, I will speak on it. The issue before us appears primarily one of strategy. I have not gone off platform, supported assault weapons bans, opposed the NAP, opposed business rights to serve or not serve customers, supported "revenue neutral" taxation, or supported government schooling. The issue is that I was, simply put, too rude for an effective strategy. My bluntness, in other words, is unstrategic.
But the lessons of politics teach us otherwise. We can look at recent politics, in which the least polite, least apologetic person on earth was elected president. Or we can look at the rapidly growing groups on both the left and right that share blunt, anti-establishment views which they express unapologetically. From a strictly strategic stance, bluntness seems to work in politics today. It may turn off specific individuals who were brought in with messaging that traded a short term gain for a long term loss, but in terms of real, long term strategy that happens over an election cycle, not a weekend, I don't see any convincing proof that bluntness is unstrategic.
But I'd also like to speak specifically about third party politics. The assumption appears to be that third parties must be overly meek, unwilling to hurt anyone's feelings, challenge anyone's world view, or go anywhere near anyone's cognitive dissonance. A third party cannot afford to, the argument goes, challenge a large scale immoral behavior done through a corrupted institution, because it lacks the political capital do do so.
Reality disagrees. The last successful third party was also quite rude, and challenged America on an immoral behavior in which the perpetrators suffered from considerable cognitive dissonance. This immoral behavior was done by a large percentage of the population. It was the foundation for a major part of American culture, and that culture is still romanticized today, in movies like Gone With The Wind. The issue was slavery. The rude, blunt opposition to slavery gave the Republicans the presidency, and made that "third party" a dominant party. They opposed not only the act of slavery, but the perpetrators of slavery.
Was their position divisive? Without question. The Republican position on slavery was as divisive as any position on any issue has been. It arguably lead to a civil war. But it was the moral stance, and history has shown it to be the strategic stance. Anyone met any Whig candidates lately?
In Liberty,
Arvin Vohra
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:05 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow, I am in seventh heaven! Now we are really getting somewhere thanks to Arvin rudely giving us a swift kick in the backside. I propose to celebrate the rebirth of the Libertarian Party as we begin the painful process of reexamining our core principles, our timid responses to the moral dilemmas imposed on us courtesy of the government with the permission of the majority and how we can thoughtfully respond to courageous attempts to get us off our intellectual posteriors.
Excrutiating as it may be, I am ecstatic at the progress we are making now and the exciting potential for much more as we grow our party. And the timing is perfect as we build on huge gains and exposure achieved in the 2016 elections and prepare for exponential growth in 2018 and 2020.
There is hope for the Libertarian Party after all!
Thoughts?
~David Pratt
On May 19, 2017 11:15 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
I have heard from a majority of the Region 1 Chairs in writing and they are opposed (5 directly opposed, some of them strongly so, and one undecided though leaning to disapproval if it is merely "for cause" which is our language), thus, I will not co-sponsor this motion.
If it came to be sponsored by 4 total (it requires more than a second) and came to a vote, I would re-poll the State Chairs and then depending upon that result, personally write each Region 1 delegate from 2016. I have received overwhelming support for this methodology.
The more informal input I have received from membership (either though email, calls, text, and other messages) has been split with no clear consensus.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Steven Nielson <stevennielson@lpwa.org> wrote:
Distinguished Leaders of the LNC -
The gravity of the situation, the very substance of all arguments and opinion shared, demands action from the body resulting in an official stance and statement. Removing my opinion of the content of the arguments, it is the action and representation of the party that we have an obligation to address.
It is simply stated: Are we (in all of our capacity as representatives of the LNC) obligated to conduct ourselves and our message in a manner that represents the position and intention of the Libertarian Party? Furthermore, if any member or group of members of this body conduct themselves in a manner that may impact, either positively or negatively, the status of the Libertarian Party do we not have an obligation to officially address such actions in rebuke or affirmation?
Let the motion that has been made be seconded, and then let us enter into official record the argument of our position, and let us as a body bring closure to question of conduct of our leadership and members of this body. This is our opportunity to lead as elected officials of the LNC and to affirm our Code of Conduct as representatives of this Party.
To address the removal - such a motion will only pass upon 2/3 vote. It is unlikely that Mr. Vohra will be suspended from his role as the Vice-Chair. However, this vote provides the opportunity to make a formal statement by this body on the very public actions, and our expectations. That is a statement needed, as I have held since this has come to pass.
In Liberty, Steven M. Nielson Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1
*Steven M. NielsonState Field Director - Johnson for PresidentRegion 1 Alternate to LP* *Former Chairperson 2015-2016,*
*Libertarian Party of Washington State 360-662-6362 <360-662-6362>*
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Steven Nekhaila < steven.nekhaila@gmail.com> wrote:
As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well. I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its veterans.
The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat, therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks, (during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without self-censoring.
In Liberty,
Steven Nekhaila Region 2 Representative Alt Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org 305-393-6412 <(305)%20393-6412>
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to *remove from office* one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page.
Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were *not* akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being *too* passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader *should* be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, *"*During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. *To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." * How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!?
In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that *could* have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a *veteran* of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the *harm* caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was *universally* true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater *service*, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for *that*, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude.
Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, *"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"* While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities *should* be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm *not* saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also *"accessories to murder"*, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera.
Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But *the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us*, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all *life*. I*t can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.*
Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this *doesn't* necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform@earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE
*"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."* *
*The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards.
On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* <image001.png> *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Posting an attempted email from Jeff Hewitt which did not successfully reach everyone: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: From Jeff Hewitt <hdigger2004@aol.com> To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 23:59:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Vice-Chair I have recieved more than one request to make a motion to remove the vice -chair from the LNC. I have also had Region 4 libertarians applaud the "courage" of a bold leader who spoke his mind. Surprise, we have differences of opinion. Many different groups in the party want their party to accomplish almost opposite results. We watched in "horror" as James Weeks took transparency to an extreme. Standing next to the stage I nearly moved to remove him from the stage. Then my inner libertarian told me, "Wait, he's not hurting anyone" and I paused. I'm glad I did. That's the same logic neighbors use to make a homeowner comply with their standards instead of his own. Weeks didn't hurt the party, we did. Americans want to be able to have a quality education, have access to state of the art healthcare and rely on local government to provide certain services efficiently at the lowest price. They want to know if an external threat appears on their border that a strong military will protect them. In short they want to live their lives as free from constraints as possible. If they choose to start their own business they don't want the government to replace organized crime in a protection racket. Please excuse my gross generalizations, but these are the people that elected me as their local leader. School vouchers, freemarket medical practices and private contracted out municipal services are ideas that not only we can sell but also will reap measurable rewards in the short term. People that embrace these solutions are not necessarily in our party but should be. Many of these people have served in the military and even more have relatives serving at the time. If you start off the conversation with "You're a murderer!", they are probably going to stay with good old red or blue despite the rancid taste in their mouth. If you take time and explain why they are murderers even though it's not their fault they will choose elsewhere and who would blame them. Men have been volunteering for service since we first got pissed off about taxes on tea and bowing to a despot who had nothing more than force on his side. This country has fought necessary wars and highly suspicious wars, but never have the men and women from lowly private to 5 star general been the deciding force in whether we engage. That "honor" is left to our elected leaders. Which brings me to my next point. Arvin, if you really want our soldiers engaged in only necessary conflicts of defense then let's get libertarians elected to offices all over this great land. City councils, county commissions, state legislatures, and yes even congress. Then and only then will we see this country get back to it's mandate of limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility. Calling our veterans and active personel "murderers" in any context is not only factually wrong but also just plain stupid. the only saving grace is the fact that none of you can name the vice-chair of either the Democratic or Republican party and if you can seek help immediately. I look forward to the next meeting and it should be a spirited debate. Arvin has hurt noone. He is an individual and he does not reflect my views or what I see the party as. He, like all of us will be responsible for his words and actions. Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative of the LNC On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior.
Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <lsharpe@neo-sage.com> wrote:
Dear LNC,
The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.
If a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a public company and I was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that position. Ours is no different.
What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public, profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).
After multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right, he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers, another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and he has no intention of stopping.
He has poor judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not stopping.
Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control instead of being productive with the precious time they give us.
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must handle our own. We need to act now.
As soon as we start consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we tell?
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."
They will hear that we agree with him:
- Our veterans are murders - Our teachers are enemies - Our candidates are liars and trickster
It is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political party. That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.
Or we can say:
"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively. We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted."
He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.
This is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of article 2 of our bylaws.
I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.
Any officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed. So should he.
Those of you who know me know that I rarely stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here, I will not fall back.
I initially was going to ask for a motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep, Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.
Let him fight for liberty outside of LP leadership.
--
Larry
*Larry Sharpe*
*The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
*https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
*212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>* *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
participants (11)
-
Aaron Starr -
Alicia Mattson -
Arvin Vohra -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
David Demarest -
Joshua Katz -
Larry Sharpe -
Patrick McKnight -
Starchild -
Steven Nekhaila -
Steven Nielson