[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

Sat Oct 22 14:13:03 EDT 2016

I vote yes.

A libertarian elected official's duty is to cut government. That's it. Not
to support the tyranny of a misled majority.

-Arvin

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap>
>
> I agree completely.
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until
>> we've heard from Assemblyman Moore.
>>
>> Brett C. Bittner
>>
>> Region 3 Representative
>> Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> brett.bittner at lp.org
>> 317.643.2566
>>
>> **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I vote Yes.
>>>
>>> This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on principle
>>> and to make
>>> a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history and
>>> Mr. Moore
>>> failed miserably.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sam Goldstein
>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>> Member at Large
>>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
>>> Indianapolis IN 46260
>>> 317-850-0726 Phone
>>> 317-582-1773 Fax
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight <
>>> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I vote yes.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate
>>>>> email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death
>>>>> penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming
>>>>> but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as
>>>>> spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way,
>>>>> turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in
>>>>> Nebraska:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Mr. Secretary,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional
>>>>> Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the retention
>>>>> of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by the
>>>>> override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians
>>>>> overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for
>>>>> practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally
>>>>> aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that
>>>>> support the death penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable
>>>>> failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial
>>>>> burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it
>>>>> visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up
>>>>> revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the
>>>>> undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators
>>>>> instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the
>>>>> death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by
>>>>> the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In
>>>>> addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of
>>>>> predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it
>>>>> is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used
>>>>> as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of
>>>>> ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the
>>>>> death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your
>>>>> conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to
>>>>> “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is
>>>>> not just practical. It is the only moral choice!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and
>>>>> have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to
>>>>> ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM
>>>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions
>>>>> with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a
>>>>> private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty
>>>>> and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across
>>>>> the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death
>>>>> penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example
>>>>> situation.  At the national convention there was a counted vote on the
>>>>> adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105
>>>>> opposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest <
>>>>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that
>>>>> merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to
>>>>> express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s
>>>>> salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to
>>>>> represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by
>>>>> Caryn and Alicia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents
>>>>> favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for
>>>>> his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to
>>>>> reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to
>>>>> reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably
>>>>> consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no
>>>>> two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles,
>>>>> Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from
>>>>> my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions
>>>>> and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations
>>>>> of principles and morals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the
>>>>> death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral,
>>>>> with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode
>>>>> Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty.
>>>>> Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal
>>>>> fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty
>>>>> that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I
>>>>> mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I
>>>>> was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly
>>>>> against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no
>>>>> Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death
>>>>> penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate
>>>>> of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents
>>>>> favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with
>>>>> the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views
>>>>> [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely
>>>>> in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political
>>>>> football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical
>>>>> questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death
>>>>> penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience
>>>>> and your political, personal and moral priorities.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for
>>>>> obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for
>>>>> Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say
>>>>> but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but
>>>>> also to our personal principles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM
>>>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but
>>>>> that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of
>>>>> the deciding vote.  Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of
>>>>> passing.  We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world
>>>>> difference, and it didn't happen.  Facepalm.
>>>>>
>>>>> IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in
>>>>> hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in
>>>>> hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected.  What's the point of
>>>>> being there if you can't vote your conscience?  That's why on the LNC I
>>>>> also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage
>>>>> organized email campaigns from their friends.  Should we be offended at a
>>>>> public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as
>>>>> party officials?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have several issues with this motion.  I particularly appreciate Mr.
>>>>> Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a
>>>>> conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind.  I
>>>>> don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his
>>>>> position to us.  We should get it straight from him.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution.  "...convey a
>>>>> strong message to all and sundry..." ?  Who talks like that?  We're
>>>>> discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree
>>>>> with us?  With which of us?  Because we don't all agree, either.  I
>>>>> probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote.
>>>>> Etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same
>>>>> group.  Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC.  Have we even confirmed that
>>>>> he's a member of the national party?  As of the national convention in May,
>>>>> our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership
>>>>> certification.  We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that
>>>>> doesn't make him a member of the national party.  We wouldn't censure
>>>>> Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or
>>>>> even the LP.
>>>>>
>>>>> The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so
>>>>> what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on?  We can't make him return
>>>>> the money.  Is it just to make ourselves feel better?  Is the LNC going to
>>>>> become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected
>>>>> official and passes resolutions about them?  I am concerned about starting
>>>>> such a trend.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that
>>>>> decision.  That ship has sailed.  I wouldn't vote to donate to him again.
>>>>> I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at
>>>>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.*
>>>>> *Co-Sponsors:*  Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein,
>>>>> Redpath
>>>>>
>>>>> *Motion:*
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in
>>>>> January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during
>>>>> the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to
>>>>> raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops"
>>>>> tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far
>>>>> successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to
>>>>> finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others,
>>>>> indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada
>>>>> have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious
>>>>> votes; and
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that
>>>>> while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties
>>>>> who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we
>>>>> do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue
>>>>> voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee
>>>>> hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax
>>>>> increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which
>>>>> the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward
>>>>> be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party
>>>>> with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at 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 at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161022/8f488ceb/attachment-0002.html>