[Lpk-execomm] Email motion: LNC Censure
Andrew Roberts
andrew.roberts at lpky.org
Fri Sep 19 18:45:28 EDT 2025
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 at lists.lpky.org> on behalf of
Charles Altendorf via Lpk-execomm <lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 18:15
To: lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org <lpk-execomm at lists.lpky.org>
Cc: Charles Altendorf <charles.altendorf at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.lpky.org
http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpk-execomm
References
1. https://aka.ms/o0ukef
More information about the Lpk-execomm
mailing list