Re: [Lpk-execomm] Email motion: LNC Censure
I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to move this conversation there. This motion requires a second. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
All,
I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following statement.
Mr. Chair,
Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase the above motion.
Thanks! Andrew Roberts
Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the motion by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that the LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate autonomy.
The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address similar issues within other state affiliates that promote ideologies--such as "group rights" or other collectivist approaches--that are fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a double standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to uphold fairness and the nonaggression principle.
While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express their views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values, diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities such as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment to liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We urge the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus on the Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
Second. *Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer* Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof. On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 4:21 PM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to move this conversation there. This motion requires a second. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
All,
I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following statement.
Mr. Chair,
Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase the above motion.
Thanks! Andrew Roberts
*Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire*
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the motion by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that the LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate autonomy.
The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address similar issues within other state affiliates that promote ideologies—such as "group rights" or other collectivist approaches—that are fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a double standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to uphold fairness and the nonaggression principle.
While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express their views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values, diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities such as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment to liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We urge the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus on the Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
With the motion seconded on-list, it is now open for discussion. I understood the intent of the motion to be the LPKY Executive Committee considering the passage a resolution, speaking on behalf of the state party, which requires a majority vote. I oppose this motion for several reasons: 1. It drags LPKY into the dispute. We don't need to be involved in this. 2. It is my understanding that this proposed LNC action stems from a meme published by LPNH on social media -- which depicted an airline pilot with a star of David on their captain's hat, seated in an airplane, with the caption "We did it!" with a 9 placed in front of an image of the twin towers forming an "11" -- that can reasonably be interpreted by others, both inside and (especially) outside of the party, as blaming "the Jews" for 9/11. 3. I strongly oppose any collectivist messaging that infers that any group ("the _____s") is responsible for the actions of a handful of individual people who either (a) participated in an action or (b) specifically enabled or endorsed it. Collectivism is inherently anti-libertarian and contradicts our national party platform. 4. LPNH has a pattern of intentionally expressing things in overtly racist terms; with racism being the lowest-IQ form of collectivism (as stated by many libertarian thought leaders, including Ayn Rand and Ron Paul). This is not the first incident. I believe members of their current board and/or social media team were kicked out of a caucus for similar messaging in the past. 5. LPNH is intentionally inflammatory, and a censure is essentially the natural reaction to that intentionally-inflammatory rhetoric within an organization. If there's an argument to be made against censure, it is, IMO, that it is giving attention to the kid who regularly throws a tantrum in the grocery store for attention. 6. It is my opinion that it is within the rights of the LNC to make such a motion, and to pass a censure based on such behavior. 7. A censure simply is a statement of disapproval of an action, and carries no actual teeth. It can sometimes be a prelude to actions with teeth, but censure itself is not. It is a statement of disapproval of behavior. That is why censure only requires a majority vote, while other disciplinary actions require two-thirds. I am voting no. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-09-19 17:11, Robert Lodder wrote:
Second.
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 4:21 PM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to move this conversation there. This motion requires a second.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
All,
I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following statement.
Mr. Chair,
Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase the above motion.
Thanks! Andrew Roberts
Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the motion by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that the LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate autonomy.
The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address similar issues within other state affiliates that promote ideologies--such as "group rights" or other collectivist approaches--that are fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a double standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to uphold fairness and the nonaggression principle.
While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express their views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values, diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities such as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment to liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We urge the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus on the Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
I have no further discussion And my vote is still in favor On 2025-09-19 17:56, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
With the motion seconded on-list, it is now open for discussion. I understood the intent of the motion to be the LPKY Executive Committee considering the passage a resolution, speaking on behalf of the state party, which requires a majority vote.
I oppose this motion for several reasons:
1. It drags LPKY into the dispute. We don't need to be involved in this.
2. It is my understanding that this proposed LNC action stems from a meme published by LPNH on social media -- which depicted an airline pilot with a star of David on their captain's hat, seated in an airplane, with the caption "We did it!" with a 9 placed in front of an image of the twin towers forming an "11" -- that can reasonably be interpreted by others, both inside and (especially) outside of the party, as blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.
3. I strongly oppose any collectivist messaging that infers that any group ("the _____s") is responsible for the actions of a handful of individual people who either (a) participated in an action or (b) specifically enabled or endorsed it. Collectivism is inherently anti-libertarian and contradicts our national party platform.
4. LPNH has a pattern of intentionally expressing things in overtly racist terms; with racism being the lowest-IQ form of collectivism (as stated by many libertarian thought leaders, including Ayn Rand and Ron Paul). This is not the first incident. I believe members of their current board and/or social media team were kicked out of a caucus for similar messaging in the past.
5. LPNH is intentionally inflammatory, and a censure is essentially the natural reaction to that intentionally-inflammatory rhetoric within an organization. If there's an argument to be made against censure, it is, IMO, that it is giving attention to the kid who regularly throws a tantrum in the grocery store for attention.
6. It is my opinion that it is within the rights of the LNC to make such a motion, and to pass a censure based on such behavior.
7. A censure simply is a statement of disapproval of an action, and carries no actual teeth. It can sometimes be a prelude to actions with teeth, but censure itself is not. It is a statement of disapproval of behavior. That is why censure only requires a majority vote, while other disciplinary actions require two-thirds.
I am voting no.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 17:11, Robert Lodder wrote:
Second.
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 4:21 PM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to move this conversation there. This motion requires a second.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
All,
I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following statement.
Mr. Chair,
Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase the above motion.
Thanks! Andrew Roberts
Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the motion by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that the LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate autonomy.
The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address similar issues within other state affiliates that promote ideologies--such as "group rights" or other collectivist approaches--that are fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a double standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to uphold fairness and the nonaggression principle.
While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express their views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values, diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities such as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment to liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We urge the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus on the Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
-- Charles Altendorf Libertarian Party of Woodford County Kentucky - County Chair Libertarian Party of Kentucky - Former State Chair
I understand the no vote. I worded the statement to indicate we don’t approve their messaging but I find it ironic the LNC is complaining of FCC censorship at the same time this is being considered. I think as a state who could have been censured for posts in the past it’s important to voice our concern and displeasure. I also added the bit about they have larger priorities to show our disappointment in their performance as a board. They are bankrupt and are worried about mean tweets. No matter how objectionable that’s off base. Those are the reasons I brought this motion forward. It should go without saying since I brought it but I vote yes. Get [1]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________ From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Charles Altendorf via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 18:15 To: lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Cc: Charles Altendorf <charles.altendorf@lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] Email motion: LNC Censure I have no further discussion And my vote is still in favor On 2025-09-19 17:56, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
With the motion seconded on-list, it is now open for discussion. I understood the intent of the motion to be the LPKY Executive Committee considering the passage a resolution, speaking on behalf of the state party, which requires a majority vote.
I oppose this motion for several reasons:
1. It drags LPKY into the dispute. We don't need to be involved in this.
2. It is my understanding that this proposed LNC action stems from a meme published by LPNH on social media -- which depicted an airline pilot with a star of David on their captain's hat, seated in an airplane, with the caption "We did it!" with a 9 placed in front of an image of the twin towers forming an "11" -- that can reasonably be interpreted by others, both inside and (especially) outside of the party, as blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.
3. I strongly oppose any collectivist messaging that infers that any group ("the _____s") is responsible for the actions of a handful of individual people who either (a) participated in an action or (b) specifically enabled or endorsed it. Collectivism is inherently anti-libertarian and contradicts our national party platform.
4. LPNH has a pattern of intentionally expressing things in overtly racist terms; with racism being the lowest-IQ form of collectivism (as stated by many libertarian thought leaders, including Ayn Rand and Ron Paul). This is not the first incident. I believe members of their current board and/or social media team were kicked out of a caucus for similar messaging in the past.
5. LPNH is intentionally inflammatory, and a censure is essentially the natural reaction to that intentionally-inflammatory rhetoric within an organization. If there's an argument to be made against censure, it is, IMO, that it is giving attention to the kid who regularly throws a tantrum in the grocery store for attention.
6. It is my opinion that it is within the rights of the LNC to make such a motion, and to pass a censure based on such behavior.
7. A censure simply is a statement of disapproval of an action, and carries no actual teeth. It can sometimes be a prelude to actions with teeth, but censure itself is not. It is a statement of disapproval of behavior. That is why censure only requires a majority vote, while other disciplinary actions require two-thirds.
I am voting no.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 17:11, Robert Lodder wrote:
Second.
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 4:21 PM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to move this conversation there. This motion requires a second.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
All,
I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following statement.
Mr. Chair,
Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase the above motion.
Thanks! Andrew Roberts
Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the motion by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that the LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate autonomy.
The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address similar issues within other state affiliates that promote ideologies--such as "group rights" or other collectivist approaches--that are fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a double standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to uphold fairness and the nonaggression principle.
While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express their views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values, diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities such as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment to liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We urge the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus on the Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm -- Charles Altendorf Libertarian Party of Woodford County Kentucky - County Chair Libertarian Party of Kentucky - Former State Chair
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm References 1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef
There's a fundamental difference between FCC censorship and internal censure. FCC censorship is government force. Censure isn't even private censorship. If anything, it's a first amendment expression itself within a group of people voluntary associated together. I think there's solid evidence that there is leeway given to affiliates for a post that misses the mark once in a while. But there's also a difference between "oops, bad wording" and what can only be labeled as a pattern of intentionally being awful. I try to ignore all of the stupid, but the LPNH's interaction with Nina Turner was also particularly awful enough to hit my radar. Based on the rumblings I've heard, I think the motion being considered by the LNC is not about "one meme" but about a pattern of behavior over time. It's my understanding that a number of former donors have specifically cited LPNH's regulary-awful messaging as why they're no longer giving. So the censure and the lack of fundraising aren't necessarily disconnected. I also know from experience that people can always find a reason not to give, not to volunteer, etc. But I don't know that it's disconnected, either. If you give people an excuse to sit out in a volunteer organization, they will. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair On 2025-09-19 18:45, Andrew Roberts via Lpk-execomm wrote:
I understand the no vote. I worded the statement to indicate we don’t approve their messaging but I find it ironic the LNC is complaining of FCC censorship at the same time this is being considered. I think as a state who could have been censured for posts in the past it’s important to voice our concern and displeasure. I also added the bit about they have larger priorities to show our disappointment in their performance as a board. They are bankrupt and are worried about mean tweets. No matter how objectionable that’s off base. Those are the reasons I brought this motion forward. It should go without saying since I brought it but I vote yes.
Get [1]Outlook for iOS __________________________________________________________________
From: Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm-bounces@lists.lpky.org> on behalf of Charles Altendorf via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 18:15 To: lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> Cc: Charles Altendorf <charles.altendorf@lpky.org> Subject: Re: [Lpk-execomm] Email motion: LNC Censure
I have no further discussion And my vote is still in favor On 2025-09-19 17:56, Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm wrote:
With the motion seconded on-list, it is now open for discussion. I understood the intent of the motion to be the LPKY Executive Committee considering the passage a resolution, speaking on behalf of the state party, which requires a majority vote.
I oppose this motion for several reasons:
1. It drags LPKY into the dispute. We don't need to be involved in this.
2. It is my understanding that this proposed LNC action stems from a meme published by LPNH on social media -- which depicted an airline pilot with a star of David on their captain's hat, seated in an airplane, with the caption "We did it!" with a 9 placed in front of an image of the twin towers forming an "11" -- that can reasonably be interpreted by others, both inside and (especially) outside of the party, as blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.
3. I strongly oppose any collectivist messaging that infers that any group ("the _____s") is responsible for the actions of a handful of individual people who either (a) participated in an action or (b) specifically enabled or endorsed it. Collectivism is inherently anti-libertarian and contradicts our national party platform.
4. LPNH has a pattern of intentionally expressing things in overtly racist terms; with racism being the lowest-IQ form of collectivism (as stated by many libertarian thought leaders, including Ayn Rand and Ron Paul). This is not the first incident. I believe members of their current board and/or social media team were kicked out of a caucus for similar messaging in the past.
5. LPNH is intentionally inflammatory, and a censure is essentially the natural reaction to that intentionally-inflammatory rhetoric within an organization. If there's an argument to be made against censure, it is, IMO, that it is giving attention to the kid who regularly throws a tantrum in the grocery store for attention.
6. It is my opinion that it is within the rights of the LNC to make such a motion, and to pass a censure based on such behavior.
7. A censure simply is a statement of disapproval of an action, and carries no actual teeth. It can sometimes be a prelude to actions with teeth, but censure itself is not. It is a statement of disapproval of behavior. That is why censure only requires a majority vote, while other disciplinary actions require two-thirds.
I am voting no.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 17:11, Robert Lodder wrote:
Second.
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 4:21 PM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to move this conversation there. This motion requires a second.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
All,
I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following statement.
Mr. Chair,
Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase the above motion.
Thanks! Andrew Roberts
Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the motion by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that the LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate autonomy.
The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address similar issues within other state affiliates that promote ideologies--such as "group rights" or other collectivist approaches--that are fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a double standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to uphold fairness and the nonaggression principle.
While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express their views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values, diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities such as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment to liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We urge the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus on the Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm -- Charles Altendorf Libertarian Party of Woodford County Kentucky - County Chair Libertarian Party of Kentucky - Former State Chair
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
References
1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef _______________________________________________ Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
The saga began with another LPNH meme. The meme is an editorial cartoon in the spirit of Thomas Nast. Nast's work was so provocative in his time that it led to direct attempts to silence or censure him, particularly from those in power whom he targeted. He wasn't simply a commentator; he was an active political force who used his art to dismantle political machines and influence public opinion, and his targets fought back. His cartoons frequently attacked Democrats, especially those he saw as being corrupt or hindering Reconstruction. This naturally led to fierce criticism from Democratic newspapers and politicians. His anti-Irish and anti-Catholic cartoons were deeply offensive and were met with outrage from those communities. His caricatures of Irish people as ape-like brutes and Catholic bishops as predatory crocodiles provoked a backlash and, in later years, led to the discontinuation and renaming of a professional award in his honor. But he remains a hero in history books. The meme is NOT saying that Jews were flying the hijacked planes on 9/11. That simple interpretation is obviously ridiculous. Everyone knows exactly who the 9/11 hijackers were: American Airlines Flight 11 (North Tower, World Trade Center) - Mohamed Atta (leader) - Abdulaziz al-Omari - Wail al-Shehri - Waleed al-Shehri - Satam al-Suqami United Airlines Flight 175 (South Tower, World Trade Center) - Marwan al-Shehhi (leader) - Fayez Banihammad - Mohand al-Shehri - Hamza al-Ghamdi - Ahmed al-Ghamdi American Airlines Flight 77 (The Pentagon) - Hani Hanjour (leader) - Khalid al-Mihdhar - Majed Moqed - Nawaf al-Hazmi - Salem al-Hazmi United Airlines Flight 93 (Shanksville, Pennsylvania) - Ziad Jarrah (leader) - Ahmed al-Haznawi - Ahmed al-Nami - Saeed al-Ghamdi NONE of them are Jewish. So clearly the cartoonist wants us to look deeper. In my opinion, the meme is in effect saying that if there were no Israel for the US to support, it seems unlikely that the 9/11 attacks would have occurred. Is the LNC disputing that US support of Israel raises the temperature of the middle east? Sure, the Saudi royal family is objectionable to many in the country, but without all the hostility we added by stirring a hot pot, I doubt that it would have boiled over onto US shores. So how should we respond to this editorial cartoon? Points 1 & 5: Involving LPKY in the Dispute & Censure as Attention-Seeking While ordinarily I prefer to mind my own business, as an organization we should dismiss the idea that LPKY should stay out of the dispute. For the LP, political action and ideological purity are paramount. A failure to defend a fellow libertarian affiliate from what one could see as an unjust power play by the LNC would be a dereliction of duty. The LNC's action represents a dangerous precedent of central authority overstepping its bounds and that such an action must be challenged on principle, regardless of the specific content of the LPNH meme. It is another skirmish in a battle for the soul of the Libertarian Party, a fight for ideological consistency against a creeping "statist" or "authoritarian" tendency within the national committee. Points 2, 3 & 4: The Content of the Meme, Collectivism, and Racism Even if the LPNH meme was offensive, racist, or "collectivist," a censure from the LNC is the wrong response. It will be interpreted as a violation of free expression and a form of censorship. The thinking goes like this: - Free Speech is Non-Negotiable: The LNC's role is not to police the speech of its members or affiliates. The LPNH, as a private organization, is free to express whatever it wants, no matter how distasteful. The only legitimate libertarian response to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. This could be done by counter-argument instead of by some sort of official censure. - The Slippery Slope: Censuring an affiliate for a "racist" meme sets a dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide what is "racist" enough for censure? This power, once granted, would inevitably be used to silence other dissenters and ideological opponents within the party. - A "Virtue-Signaling" Trap: One could cast the LNC's action as a pathetic attempt to appease outsiders and "the media" by distancing itself from a controversial affiliate. We should have no patience for this, instead arguing that libertarians should not cater to the sensibilities of non-libertarians. It is a betrayal of core principles for the sake of public relations. Points 6 & 7: The LNC's Right to Censure and the Lack of "Teeth" We should challenge the premise that the LNC has a "right" to censure based on the content of speech. The LNC's authority is derived from and limited by its members and affiliates. If that authority is used to suppress free expression, it should be opposed on principle. It does not matter that a censure has "no teeth." Even a symbolic act of disapproval from a central body can be a precursor to more severe sanctions. It is a form of moral aggression, a public shaming that undermines the unity and ideological foundation of the party. A censure is a declaration of ideological warfare, and it must be met with an equally strong defense of liberty. One could compare it to the "soft" power of the state that, while not a direct act of violence, is still a form of coercion and control. The LPKY resolution is a crucial defense of a core libertarian principle and a necessary stand against an incipient authoritarianism within the party. All of the objections are either timid, misguided, or betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the non-aggression principle and the importance of free expression. I vote in favor. On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 5:56 PM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm < lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
With the motion seconded on-list, it is now open for discussion. I understood the intent of the motion to be the LPKY Executive Committee considering the passage a resolution, speaking on behalf of the state party, which requires a majority vote.
I oppose this motion for several reasons:
1. It drags LPKY into the dispute. We don't need to be involved in this.
2. It is my understanding that this proposed LNC action stems from a meme published by LPNH on social media -- which depicted an airline pilot with a star of David on their captain's hat, seated in an airplane, with the caption "We did it!" with a 9 placed in front of an image of the twin towers forming an "11" -- that can reasonably be interpreted by others, both inside and (especially) outside of the party, as blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.
3. I strongly oppose any collectivist messaging that infers that any group ("the _____s") is responsible for the actions of a handful of individual people who either (a) participated in an action or (b) specifically enabled or endorsed it. Collectivism is inherently anti-libertarian and contradicts our national party platform.
4. LPNH has a pattern of intentionally expressing things in overtly racist terms; with racism being the lowest-IQ form of collectivism (as stated by many libertarian thought leaders, including Ayn Rand and Ron Paul). This is not the first incident. I believe members of their current board and/or social media team were kicked out of a caucus for similar messaging in the past.
5. LPNH is intentionally inflammatory, and a censure is essentially the natural reaction to that intentionally-inflammatory rhetoric within an organization. If there's an argument to be made against censure, it is, IMO, that it is giving attention to the kid who regularly throws a tantrum in the grocery store for attention.
6. It is my opinion that it is within the rights of the LNC to make such a motion, and to pass a censure based on such behavior.
7. A censure simply is a statement of disapproval of an action, and carries no actual teeth. It can sometimes be a prelude to actions with teeth, but censure itself is not. It is a statement of disapproval of behavior. That is why censure only requires a majority vote, while other disciplinary actions require two-thirds.
I am voting no.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 17:11, Robert Lodder wrote:
Second.
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 4:21 PM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to move this conversation there. This motion requires a second.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
All,
I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following statement.
Mr. Chair,
Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase the above motion.
Thanks! Andrew Roberts
Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the motion by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that the LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate autonomy.
The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address similar issues within other state affiliates that promote ideologies--such as "group rights" or other collectivist approaches--that are fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a double standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to uphold fairness and the nonaggression principle.
While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express their views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values, diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities such as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment to liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We urge the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus on the Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
-- *Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer* Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
Try this again. By vote of 3-1 the motion passes. Sep 19, 2025 22:23:39 Robert Lodder <rlodder@biospherics.net>:
The saga began with another LPNH meme. The meme is an editorial cartoon in the spirit of Thomas Nast. Nast's work was so provocative in his time that it led to direct attempts to silence or censure him, particularly from those in power whom he targeted. He wasn't simply a commentator; he was an active political force who used his art to dismantle political machines and influence public opinion, and his targets fought back. His cartoons frequently attacked Democrats, especially those he saw as being corrupt or hindering Reconstruction. This naturally led to fierce criticism from Democratic newspapers and politicians. His anti-Irish and anti-Catholic cartoons were deeply offensive and were met with outrage from those communities. His caricatures of Irish people as ape-like brutes and Catholic bishops as predatory crocodiles provoked a backlash and, in later years, led to the discontinuation and renaming of a professional award in his honor. But he remains a hero in history books.
The meme is NOT saying that Jews were flying the hijacked planes on 9/11. That simple interpretation is obviously ridiculous. Everyone knows exactly who the 9/11 hijackers were:
*American Airlines Flight 11 (North Tower, World Trade Center)*
*
Mohamed Atta (leader) *
Abdulaziz al-Omari *
Wail al-Shehri *
Waleed al-Shehri *
Satam al-Suqami
*United Airlines Flight 175 (South Tower, World Trade Center)*
*
Marwan al-Shehhi (leader) *
Fayez Banihammad *
Mohand al-Shehri *
Hamza al-Ghamdi *
Ahmed al-Ghamdi
*American Airlines Flight 77 (The Pentagon)*
*
Hani Hanjour (leader) *
Khalid al-Mihdhar *
Majed Moqed *
Nawaf al-Hazmi *
Salem al-Hazmi
*United Airlines Flight 93 (Shanksville, Pennsylvania)*
*
Ziad Jarrah (leader) *
Ahmed al-Haznawi *
Ahmed al-Nami *
Saeed al-Ghamdi
NONE of them are Jewish. So clearly the cartoonist wants us to look deeper.
In my opinion, the meme is in effect saying that if there were no Israel for the US to support, it seems unlikely that the 9/11 attacks would have occurred. Is the LNC disputing that US support of Israel raises the temperature of the middle east? Sure, the Saudi royal family is objectionable to many in the country, but without all the hostility we added by stirring a hot pot, I doubt that it would have boiled over onto US shores.
So how should we respond to this editorial cartoon?
*Points 1 & 5: Involving LPKY in the Dispute & Censure as Attention-Seeking*
While ordinarily I prefer to mind my own business, as an organization we should dismiss the idea that LPKY should stay out of the dispute. For the LP, political action and ideological purity are paramount. A failure to defend a fellow libertarian affiliate from what one could see as an unjust power play by the LNC would be a dereliction of duty. The LNC's action represents a dangerous precedent of central authority overstepping its bounds and that such an action must be challenged on principle, regardless of the specific content of the LPNH meme. It is another skirmish in a battle for the soul of the Libertarian Party, a fight for ideological consistency against a creeping "statist" or "authoritarian" tendency within the national committee.
*Points 2, 3 & 4: The Content of the Meme, Collectivism, and Racism*
Even if the LPNH meme was offensive, racist, or "collectivist," a censure from the LNC is the wrong response. It will be interpreted as a violation of free expression and a form of censorship.
The thinking goes like this:
*
*Free Speech is Non-Negotiable*: The LNC's role is not to police the speech of its members or affiliates. The LPNH, as a private organization, is free to express whatever it wants, no matter how distasteful. The only legitimate libertarian response to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. This could be done by counter-argument instead of by some sort of official censure. *
*The Slippery Slope*: Censuring an affiliate for a "racist" meme sets a dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide what is "racist" enough for censure? This power, once granted, would inevitably be used to silence other dissenters and ideological opponents within the party. *
*A "Virtue-Signaling" Trap*: One could cast the LNC's action as a pathetic attempt to appease outsiders and "the media" by distancing itself from a controversial affiliate. We should have no patience for this, instead arguing that libertarians should not cater to the sensibilities of non-libertarians. It is a betrayal of core principles for the sake of public relations.
*Points 6 & 7: The LNC's Right to Censure and the Lack of "Teeth"*
We should challenge the premise that the LNC has a "right" to censure based on the content of speech. The LNC's authority is derived from and limited by its members and affiliates. If that authority is used to suppress free expression, it should be opposed on principle. It does not matter that a censure has "no teeth." Even a symbolic act of disapproval from a central body can be a precursor to more severe sanctions. It is a form of moral aggression, a public shaming that undermines the unity and ideological foundation of the party. A censure is a declaration of ideological warfare, and it must be met with an equally strong defense of liberty. One could compare it to the "soft" power of the state that, while not a direct act of violence, is still a form of coercion and control.
The LPKY resolution is a crucial defense of a core libertarian principle and a necessary stand against an incipient authoritarianism within the party. All of the objections are either timid, misguided, or betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the non-aggression principle and the importance of free expression. I vote in favor.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 5:56 PM Ken Moellman via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org> wrote:
With the motion seconded on-list, it is now open for discussion. I understood the intent of the motion to be the LPKY Executive Committee considering the passage a resolution, speaking on behalf of the state party, which requires a majority vote.
I oppose this motion for several reasons:
1. It drags LPKY into the dispute. We don't need to be involved in this.
2. It is my understanding that this proposed LNC action stems from a meme published by LPNH on social media -- which depicted an airline pilot with a star of David on their captain's hat, seated in an airplane, with the caption "We did it!" with a 9 placed in front of an image of the twin towers forming an "11" -- that can reasonably be interpreted by others, both inside and (especially) outside of the party, as blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.
3. I strongly oppose any collectivist messaging that infers that any group ("the _____s") is responsible for the actions of a handful of individual people who either (a) participated in an action or (b) specifically enabled or endorsed it. Collectivism is inherently anti-libertarian and contradicts our national party platform.
4. LPNH has a pattern of intentionally expressing things in overtly racist terms; with racism being the lowest-IQ form of collectivism (as stated by many libertarian thought leaders, including Ayn Rand and Ron Paul). This is not the first incident. I believe members of their current board and/or social media team were kicked out of a caucus for similar messaging in the past.
5. LPNH is intentionally inflammatory, and a censure is essentially the natural reaction to that intentionally-inflammatory rhetoric within an organization. If there's an argument to be made against censure, it is, IMO, that it is giving attention to the kid who regularly throws a tantrum in the grocery store for attention.
6. It is my opinion that it is within the rights of the LNC to make such a motion, and to pass a censure based on such behavior.
7. A censure simply is a statement of disapproval of an action, and carries no actual teeth. It can sometimes be a prelude to actions with teeth, but censure itself is not. It is a statement of disapproval of behavior. That is why censure only requires a majority vote, while other disciplinary actions require two-thirds.
I am voting no.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 17:11, Robert Lodder wrote:
Second.
Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (301) 476-0705 Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025, 4:21 PM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:
I have just fixed the excom mailing list. I am cc'ing the list to move this conversation there. This motion requires a second.
--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
Libertarian Party of Kentucky State Party Executive Committee Chair
On 2025-09-19 16:13, Andrew Roberts wrote:
All,
I'd like to make a motion for us to adopt the following statement.
Mr. Chair,
Please let me know if this is out of order or I should rephrase the above motion.
Thanks! Andrew Roberts
Statement of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky on the Libertarian National Committee's Selective Censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPKY) strongly opposes the motion by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to censure the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) over social media activities that the LNC claims violate party standards. This action is not only inconsistent but also undermines the principle of affiliate autonomy.
The LNC has selectively targeted LPNH while failing to address similar issues within other state affiliates that promote ideologies--such as "group rights" or other collectivist approaches--that are fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This selective enforcement undermines the credibility of the LNC and creates a double standard that is unacceptable within a party that claims to uphold fairness and the nonaggression principle.
While LPKY does not endorse every aspect of LPNH's social media strategy, we affirm the right of all state affiliates to express their views in line with the Party's Statement of Principles. The LNC's focus on this issue appears to stem more from internal factional disputes than from any legitimate concern for the Party's values, diverting attention and resources away from critical priorities such as membership growth, candidate support, and ballot access.
The Libertarian Party's strength lies in its unity and commitment to liberty, not in divisive and unproductive internal disputes. We urge the LNC to withdraw its censure motion against LPNH and refocus on the Party's true mission of advancing individual liberty, supporting affiliates, and building a stronger movement.
Lpk-execomm mailing list Lpk-execomm@lists.lpky.org http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
--
*Robert A. Lodder, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer*
Phone: _(301) 476-0705_ Email: rlodder@biospherics.net
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
participants (5)
-
Andrew Roberts -
Charles Altendorf -
Ken Moellman -
ken.moellman＠lpky.org
-
Robert Lodder