[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
david.demarest at lp.org
david.demarest at lp.org
Thu Apr 5 11:43:07 EDT 2018
Get serious. I could draw you a picture to connect the obvious dots, but I am not into soundbite memes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:40 AM
To: Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
How about political party leaders who argued on social media to vote for
candidates who advocated using force and theft to make sure there was a
cake at every wedding?
Asking for a friend.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:
> **raises hand**
>
> I don't know what debate you are in but it doesn't appear to be this one.
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:11 AM, <david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> The Libertarian Party was born from the radical ideas introduced by Ayn
>> Rand. She was not a Libertarian and did not like Libertarians, perhaps
>> because she thought they were stealing her ideas and misinterpreting
>> them. And interpret them, they did. Rand absolutely nailed the moral
>> justification for reason, rational self-interest, and laissez faire
>> capitalism. Rand was a Minarchist and perhaps a mild chauvinist. She
>> suggested that top-down leaders should be men, not women. The radicals
>> that created the LP built the party and Statement of Principles by
>> taking Rand's admirable intellectual process a step further. They had
>> the temerity and courage to examine the moral justification for
>> government, or lack thereof. Make no mistake, the LP was born of
>> radical, controversial ideas expressed with passion that grew the
>> movement exponentially based largely on Rand's ideas that filled the
>> intellectual vacuum that existed prior to the release of ‘Atlas
>> Shrugged’.
>>
>>
>> As many intellectual movements do, at least at the top-down political
>> level, the Libertarian Party gradually moved away from its radical
>> roots, ostensibly to avoid scaring off voters. Then along came Dr. Ron
>> Paul. His radical interpretation of what was wrong with government and
>> specific remedies reinvigorated the LP and generated a huge following,
>> especially among the young. Many Libertarians, both radicals and
>> moderates, that were inspired by both Ayn Rand and Dr. Ron Paul,
>> disagree with specific points in Rand’s and Dr. Paul’s Libertarian
>> world views, particularly on the issue of Minarchism versus
>> Voluntaryism.
>>
>>
>> Our specific ideological disagreements, however, cannot obscure the
>> fact that radical, controversial ideas, expressed passionately by
>> inspirational leaders, such and Rand and Dr. Paul, were and will
>> continue to be the driving force that sustains the broader Libertarian
>> movement. The question is whether the political arm of the movement,
>> the Libertarian Party, will follow suit, inspire others with our
>> intellectual courage, and lead by example with new and controversial
>> ideas. Or will we apologize to voters for our principles and gradually
>> drift toward the fate of the old parties that blatantly appease voters
>> to win hollow political victories really aimed at gaining authority
>> over others.
>> Who among us will have the intellectual foresight, creativity, courage,
>> and passion necessary to introduce new and controversial ideas that
>> will inspire non-Libertarians to vote for Libertarian candidates, win
>> meaningful elections at all levels to obtain regulatory relief, and
>> upsize the voluntary market sector while downsizing the coercive
>> statist sector? Who among us will be the next Ayn Rand or Dr. Ron Paul
>> to reinvigorate and re-radicalize the Libertarian Party in our quest
>> for freedom, nothing more, nothing less, for all people?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lnc-business <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On Behalf Of
>> Starchild
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:55 AM
>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin
>> Vohra
>>
>>
>>
>> Caryn Ann,
>>
>>
>> No worries about not being able to take my call, I know
>> you do an incredible amount of work for the party and certainly don't
>> begrudge you your family time. And I appreciate your kind words about
>> my creativity and writing ability. I think the latter can be rather
>> hit-or-miss – I don't always feel particularly articulate, and
>> sometimes I can just be lazy or sloppy. Your essay below is very well
>> written by the way, even though the tone is informal.
>>
>>
>> I'm not aware of ContraPoints, although I do consume a
>> wide variety of media from different viewpoints both left and right as
>> well as libertarian, as I agree it's good to be familiar with the
>> arguments for their respective brands of statism. Will try to check
>> that out.
>>
>>
>> I can look at pages on the "F" site now, if someone
>> sends me a link, I just can't post there without an account. Aside from
>> my desire not to contribute to the problem of society entrusting
>> certain companies with too much power, the problem with creating a
>> dummy account on that site in order to see what Libertarians are saying
>> there is that people would naturally want to know who I am before
>> friending me, and that process of getting into everybody's friend
>> networks to see the conversations would naturally take some time.
>> Meanwhile, as it became commonly known among members of our community
>> that Account X was me under a different name, it seems inevitable that
>> someone not wanting my voice there for whatever reason(s) would
>> anonymously report me and get it shut down.
>>
>>
>>
>> > ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==
>>
>> > Then you conceded my point.
>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be under the impression that I was trying
>> to say it was designed as a litmus test. That's not what I was trying
>> to say. I was recognizing that it IS a kind of litmus test, but that we
>> could use a better one.
>>
>>
>>
>> > He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.
>> That is the charitable reading. Or you are saying he passive
>> aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies.
>>
>>
>> I think there's a difference between walking back
>> specific phrasing that caused offense, and disavowing the underlying
>> message that readers would naturally get from a post, which I'm not
>> aware of him doing until now.
>>
>>
>> But to get to the heart of this. While there are
>> various individual points of your argument with which I am in
>> agreement, the overall caricature you paint of Arvin just doesn't
>> square with the observations of my own senses – the talk of "mind
>> games", "gaslighting", "bad actors", "trolls", "edgelords" (this sounds
>> like something out of a sci-fi novel!), posts that "ooze with glee",
>> "enjoy(ing) what (he) put(s) others through", etc. – none of this
>> accords with my personal sense of the individual I've come to know
>> during two terms on the LNC.
>>
>>
>> I'm not saying YOU are trying to "gaslight" us; I don't
>> doubt your sincerity. But take a step back and think about the kind of
>> person that Arvin would have to be, in order for all the stuff you're
>> saying about him to be true, and (for everyone) ask yourselves whether
>> that's really the same person we've known on this committee.
>>
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>>
>>
>> ((( starchild )))
>>
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> [1]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> (415) 625-FREE
>>
>> @StarchildSF
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2018, at 12:12 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Starchild, we are not going to change each other's minds. I could
>> not
>>
>> > take your calls as I was recording live for the LP. Also honestly,
>> I
>>
>> > am not sacrificing any more family time for Arvin. Any time I do
>> will
>>
>> > be getting on the phone with members who now think the LP is not
>> for
>>
>> > them - that non-edgelords need not apply. Yes, I get those calls.
>>
>> > ==Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". ...When
>> you
>>
>> > refer to
>>
>> > "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking
>>
>> > about?==
>>
>> > How members are taking it. On Facebeast.
>>
>> > == Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts
>> other
>>
>> > than
>>
>> > what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not
>> parents.==
>>
>> > Starchild at this point it is incumbent on you to get a dummy
>> account
>>
>> > and research and see for yourself.
>>
>> > ==The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the
>> language
>>
>> > given then as justification for censure, and now uses that
>> language
>>
>> > as
>>
>> > justification for suspension (which was previously rejected).===
>>
>> > That is what citing is. And it was rejected as not enough THEN, so
>>
>> > censure, in which the next step is removal. That is the progression
>> of
>>
>> > professional discipline.
>>
>> > ==The only
>>
>> > thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
>>
>> > ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he
>> has
>>
>> > disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted
>> during
>>
>> > the intervening weeks).===
>>
>> > First Starchild, I think you may be aware of the YouTuber
>>
>> > ContraPoints. Excellent liberal commentator for people to get out
>> of
>>
>> > the Milo echo chamber and hear good liberal defenses. I don't
>> agree
>>
>> > with her, but I respect her immensely. She talks about the
>> difficulty
>>
>> > of dealing with ethno nationalists - who say all the fashy things
>> but
>>
>> > then deny it. There comes a point where it is a body of evidence.
>> The
>>
>> > analogy here is to how gaslighting works NOT any idea that anyone
>> here
>>
>> > is fashy (OBVIOUSLY NO ONE HERE IS) - just showing how these things
>>
>> > work and how Libertarians are often hoodwinked. I can send you the
>>
>> > link to her video - it is fantastic, and I think you would love her
>> as
>>
>> > a person. She reminds me of you with her creative genius. Back to
>>
>> > Arvin, It was more than ill-advised, it was inexcusable for a
>> leader of
>>
>> > the LP. Just like it would be inexcusable for a leader of the ADL
>> to
>>
>> > make a "get into the ovens" "joke." Apologies and alleged
>> disavowing
>>
>> > (many many people do not believe it because again, he goes on to
>> talk
>>
>> > about WHEN it is acceptable in the same sentence - taking away any
>>
>> > genuineness or utility of any disavowal and is why I don't buy his
>>
>> > later disavowal either - I just don't. I'm a wise old bird when it
>>
>> > comes to these mind games) do not make everything okay. This is
>>
>> > repeated behaviour and it is enough. I was once in an abusive
>>
>> > marriage. Yes he apologized. Many times. But there came a time
>> when
>>
>> > it was enough. And my ex genuinely wanted to do better (or
>> convinced
>>
>> > me he did) - Arvin has promised us he will be worse. His words
>> ring
>>
>> > hollow particularly when coupled with a call to defend taking up
>> arms
>>
>> > and lethal force.
>>
>> > ==Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
>>
>> > apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he
>> stood
>>
>> > by
>>
>> > the basic positions taken therein.===
>>
>> > He has walked back statements and apologized for bad implications.
>>
>> > That is the charitable reading. Or you are saying he passive
>>
>> > aggressively just said I am sorry you are such crybabies. He is
>>
>> > standing by this basic position too - it is not very utilitarian to
>>
>> > shoot up school boards and to HIM it may not be proportional - but
>> you
>>
>> > know, they are the enemy and their collaborators. You simply have
>> to
>>
>> > read carefully. Its in the very post here - why do you think two
>>
>> > people changed to YES - AFTER reading his "defense." Because it
>> read
>>
>> > like a fertilizer bomb. Our words have impact. I watched some
>>
>> > specials on what drove McVeigh to his horrific act - mixing bad
>>
>> > government with reckless rhetoric and a healthy dose of nuttiness
>> and a
>>
>> > big kaboom comes out. Free speech is not consequenceless speech.
>> That
>>
>> > girl who goaded her male friend over text to just kill himself and
>> he
>>
>> > did - she didn't kill him. He still had agency. It is a danger of
>>
>> > free speech, but it doesn't make her speech noble or good. Our
>> words -
>>
>> > as leaders - have influence. We took these positions knowing that.
>>
>> > Libertarians believe in responsibility. Part of that
>> responsibility is
>>
>> > that you don't as a leader in the third largest political party in
>> the
>>
>> > US in a politically violent time, OVER THE BODIES OF DEAD TEENS,
>> "joke"
>>
>> > about murdering school board officials - when we run school board
>>
>> > officials!!! By Arvin's logic, we are enemy collaborators. Many
>>
>> > anarchists of his POV think so. This anarchist does not.
>>
>> > ==I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.==
>>
>> > Then you conceded my point. It was put in place as a barrier, a
>>
>> > protection, to OUR MEMBERS. Which our Vice Chair blithely "joked
>>
>> > away." Not acceptable. Not okay. And another note ends up in many
>>
>> > members files due to Arvin. Its all fun and games until shit gets
>>
>> > real. He either was so obtuse and tone deaf to make such an
>>
>> > inappropriate "joke" (coupled with his past inappropriate comments
>>
>> > about preferring that little girls get impregnated by much older
>> men
>>
>> > with jobs rather than an equally confused kid) OR he meant it. OR
>>
>> > potentially a combination of both. "Jokes" are often "funny" to
>> the
>>
>> > people who make them because there is some small grain of truth in
>> them
>>
>> > to the maker and to the audience. We laugh at inappropriate
>>
>> > stereotypes because there ARE some people like that (the problem is
>>
>> > making a whole GROUP like that and making neutral characteristics
>> to be
>>
>> > malignant or bad when it is just people being people). To wit,
>> there
>>
>> > are a lot of radical leftist feminists with pink hair. I am not
>> one of
>>
>> > them. But people laugh when that joke is made towards me. It is
>> funny
>>
>> > because here is some truth. And then I get an opportunity to show
>> how
>>
>> > stupid collectivization is. What kernel of truth did Arvin find SO
>>
>> > FUNNY? That he juxtaposed it with the murder of children!?:! As a
>>
>> > political leader????? There are people who make "rape jokes." I
>>
>> > question what in the person exists for them to even consider that a
>>
>> > "joke" unless it was to show some underlying truth through dark
>> evil.
>>
>> > What underlying truth is there in this? Not to mention that THIS
>> IS A
>>
>> > PATTERN. Arvin has had for months - quite seriously - made posts
>> that
>>
>> > follow the pattern of Bad Idea: XXXX, Good Idea: XXXXX or more
>>
>> > frequently Bad Idea XXXX, Worse Idea XXXXX. So he then goes and
>> says
>>
>> > Bad Idea school shootings. Good Idea School Board Shootings, and
>> no
>>
>> > everyone is supposed to magically know that THIS one was not
>> serious.
>>
>> > That he broke character. (it also troubles me that he admits he
>>
>> > wouldn't say that on FB but WeMe (or whatever silly name it is) is
>>
>> > edgier so its all okay..... so perhaps helicopter ride jokes are
>> also
>>
>> > okay, you just gotta be down with the Hoppe dudes to make them).
>>
>> > Why do we find it so ironic when the fundamentalist theocrat who
>> rails
>>
>> > against gay people is found in bed with another of the same sex.
>> Not
>>
>> > because we think he should not have the right or any moral judgment
>>
>> > about the intimate act. We rightly note the hypocrisy of a person
>> who
>>
>> > is part of a movement that condemns others for such things doing
>> such
>>
>> > things. We are a movement built on PEACE and non-initiation of
>> force.
>>
>> > To have one of our leaders make a joke out of our cardinal
>> principle
>>
>> > tickles the same sense of wrongness. Mother Theresa could get away
>>
>> > with a nun joke. She couldn't get away with a joke about starving
>>
>> > Indian children, even if she apologized. That is not thought
>> police.
>>
>> > That is not unLibertarian. It is sheer meritocracy.
>>
>> > There are no words I can explain this better with Starchild. You
>> are
>>
>> > brilliant and can out-write me on any day of the week and twice on
>>
>> > Sunday. But you are off base here, and I think lost in a
>> Libertopia
>>
>> > where there are not bad actors and trolls and destructive edgelords
>>
>> > that act that way because they enjoy what they put others through.
>> Our
>>
>> > failure to see and deal with is evidence that dangerous sociopaths
>> (NO,
>>
>> > that is not what I am saying is going on here) would have a field
>> day
>>
>> > in "our world" because we would buy their silver-tongued
>>
>> > "explanations." We have got the gentle as doves part down pat. We
>>
>> > need to brush up on the wise as serpents part.
>>
>> > I'm done. I have spilled my ration of digital ink.
>>
>> > What is even worse about what Arvin has done - and his posts over
>> it
>>
>> > ooze with glee - he is fracturing us with all the zeal of the High
>>
>> > Septon -- the Party will not be pure until she is stripped and
>> paraded
>>
>> > through the streets in atonement for our sins of a ticket that
>> didn't
>>
>> > always stick to libertarian principles. That isn't what he was
>> elected
>>
>> > to do. He did have recourse as Vice Chair - he could have moved to
>>
>> > disqualify them. He did not. He can resign and not have the
>> weight of
>>
>> > this responsibility if he wishes. Life involves choices, and we
>> chose
>>
>> > these roles and responsibilities.
>>
>> > This is a cumulative case of which the "lets murder the school
>> board"
>>
>> > "joke" is just the latest. He was censured. That is a
>> probationary
>>
>> > warning. He didn't take heed and picked the one thing that holds us
>>
>> > together - the membership pledge of non-aggression - as the butt of
>> his
>>
>> > "joke" built on the youthful victims who woke up that day wondering
>>
>> > about how much homework they would have or if their crush was still
>> mad
>>
>> > at them - not contemplating that those same bodies carefully
>> dressed
>>
>> > and ready would within hours be cold and dead and the only clothing
>>
>> > that would matter would be the attire they would be buried in.
>>
>> > Let me play the Septa for a moment and say.... "shame."
>>
>> >
>>
>> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Starchild <[1][2]starchild at lp.org
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Caryn Ann,
>>
>> > My further responses interspersed below...
>>
>> > On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> > ==When you say "He defended the morality of violence against
>>
>> > all
>>
>> > 'enemy
>>
>> > collaborators' such as teachers and school boards", I don't
>>
>> > know to
>>
>> > which statement(s) you are referring, so I don't know if I'd
>>
>> > interpret
>>
>> > them as you apparently are.==
>>
>> > I know how our members are. Yes you are absent from the
>> world
>>
>> > of
>>
>> > social media - where the damage is happening. He is opposed
>> to
>>
>> > violence against the state because it doesn't work but goads
>>
>> > people
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > follow the trail of when it is moral to use guns against
>> these
>>
>> > people
>>
>> > Not sure what you mean by "I know how our members are". I
>> don't
>>
>> > use the
>>
>> > social media site that starts with an "F", but I'm on Twitter,
>>
>> > numerous
>>
>> > email lists (including the Radical Caucus list, which it would
>> be
>>
>> > cool
>>
>> > if the caucus actually used!). I just joined MeWe. When you
>> refer
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > "the world of social media", which other sites are you talking
>>
>> > about?
>>
>> > --- my example of the joking abortion clinic bomber is apt -
>>
>> > language
>>
>> > means something and has consequences.
>>
>> > == I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self defense
>> or
>>
>> > defense
>>
>> > of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think
>>
>> > non-pacifist
>>
>> > libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I think it's
>>
>> > necessarily
>>
>> > a
>>
>> > good idea, or the path I want to follow.==
>>
>> > I do too. That was never the point. You are not doing it
>> in
>>
>> > the
>>
>> > context of a school shooting, venomous rhetoric against
>>
>> > teachers AND
>>
>> > parents, and then claiming it was a "joke" and goading
>> people
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > consider just when they might pick up a gun against these
>>
>> > people.
>>
>> > Again it sounds like you are referring to some post or posts
>>
>> > other than
>>
>> > what you sent me, which mentioned only school boards, not
>>
>> > parents.
>>
>> > ==The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and having
>>
>> > already
>>
>> > faced removal) using the same language is a good reason not
>> to
>>
>> > rely
>>
>> > on
>>
>> > that language referring to previous actions now. Seems a lot
>>
>> > like
>>
>> > double jeopardy.===
>>
>> > It is perfectly a good reason since censure is meant as a
>>
>> > WARNING,
>>
>> > and
>>
>> > citing the warning when taking the next step is how reality
>>
>> > works.
>>
>> > The motion does more than "cite" the censure, it repeats the
>>
>> > language
>>
>> > given then as justification for censure, and now uses that
>>
>> > language as
>>
>> > justification for suspension (which was previously rejected).
>> The
>>
>> > only
>>
>> > thing I'm aware of that's changed since then is Arvin made one
>>
>> > ill-advised post which he said was a joke in poor taste and he
>>
>> > has
>>
>> > disavowed (out of god knows how many other things he's posted
>>
>> > during
>>
>> > the intervening weeks).
>>
>> > ==And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was acceptable.
>> If
>>
>> > he
>>
>> > hadn't
>>
>> > retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to resign,
>> and
>>
>> > if he
>>
>> > didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED motion
>> for
>>
>> > suspension.==
>>
>> > Funny that, he keeps making horrid statements and
>> "retracting"
>>
>> > them.
>>
>> > And promising more. I think you are being gullible beyond
>>
>> > belief and
>>
>> > excusing the inexcusable.
>>
>> > Which statements has Arvin retracted in the past? I think he's
>>
>> > apologized for upsetting people with other posts, but that he
>>
>> > stood by
>>
>> > the basic positions taken therein. That's different than what
>>
>> > he's
>>
>> > saying in this case � here's what he just posted on MeWe:
>>
>> > "Today, I�m being accused of advocating violence. Frankly,
>>
>> > that�s false. Like many of you, I have said that the Second
>>
>> > Amendment
>>
>> > is for defending yourself against government. I�ve also,
>>
>> > repeatedly
>>
>> > pointed out that a violent revolution is neither necessary nor
>>
>> > likely
>>
>> > to work. I�ve advocated against violence, even morally
>>
>> > justified
>>
>> > violence, repeatedly. I�ve even advocated against
>> �legal�
>>
>> > violence done
>>
>> > by the state, and encouraged young men and women to find
>>
>> > nonviolent
>>
>> > work, rather than join the military.
>>
>> > I don�t advocate violence. I don�t support it. I don�t
>>
>> > support �legal�
>>
>> > violence done by the state. I don�t support morally
>> justified
>>
>> > violence
>>
>> > against the state. I oppose violence in every form.
>>
>> > Did I make a joke about violence? Yes. Did I also apologize
>> and
>>
>> > clarify
>>
>> > my position a few hours later? Yes. Did I emphasize my
>> opposition
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > violence? Yes.
>>
>> > I�ve been very clear about my positions. I know many of you
>>
>> > don�t agree
>>
>> > with them, but I haven�t said �Haha, just kidding,�
>> because
>>
>> > I was never
>>
>> > kidding. Military service is immoral, because U.S. foreign
>> policy
>>
>> > is
>>
>> > immoral. Government school involvement is immoral, because
>> theft
>>
>> > is immoral. Age of consent laws, which have the state usurp
>>
>> > natural
>>
>> > rights that stem from self ownership as well as family rights,
>>
>> > are
>>
>> > also immoral. I continue to stand by each of those positions.
>>
>> > But I�m not standing by a joke taken literally, because it
>> is a
>>
>> > joke taken literally. A joke in poor taste, as I�ve clearly
>>
>> > stated, but
>>
>> > a joke nonetheless."
>>
>> > ===I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am a
>> strong
>>
>> > supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be
>>
>> > strengthened
>>
>> > (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as
>>
>> > scoring some
>>
>> > minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership
>>
>> > positions in
>>
>> > the party).==
>>
>> > I suspect you don't, since it was never a LITMUS test to
>> begin
>>
>> > with
>>
>> > no
>>
>> > matter how much we would like it to be so.
>>
>> > From David Nolan, Interestingly, most people in the LP do
>> not
>>
>> > know
>>
>> > why
>>
>> > it was originally placed on membership applications. We did
>> it
>>
>> > not
>>
>> > because we believed that we could keep out "bad" people by
>>
>> > asking
>>
>> > them
>>
>> > to sign--after all, evil people will lie to achieve their
>>
>> > ends--but
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > provide some evidence that the LP was not a group advocating
>>
>> > violent
>>
>> > overthrow of the gov't. In the early 70's, memories of
>> Nixon's
>>
>> > "enemies
>>
>> > list" and the McCarthy hearings of the 50's were still fresh
>> in
>>
>> > people's minds, and we wanted to protect ourselves from
>> future
>>
>> > witch-hunts.^[1][2]
>>
>> > I'm aware that the pledge wasn't designed as a litmus test.
>> It's
>>
>> > better
>>
>> > than nothing, but the language leaves much room for
>>
>> > interpretation.
>>
>> > Which is why I think it would be helpful to have something
>> more
>>
>> > specific, like asking people's positions on a sampling of
>> civil
>>
>> > liberties, economic freedom, and war/peace/nationalism
>> questions.
>>
>> > Love & Liberty,
>>
>> > ((( starchild )))
>>
>> > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> > [1][2][3]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > (415) 625-FREE
>>
>> > @StarchildSF
>>
>> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
>>
>> > <[2][3][4]starchild at lp.org>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Caryn Ann,
>>
>> > When you say "He defended the morality of violence
>>
>> > against
>>
>> > all 'enemy collaborators' such as teachers and school
>> boards", I
>>
>> > don't know to which statement(s) you are referring, so I
>> don't
>>
>> > know
>>
>> > if I'd interpret them as you apparently are.
>>
>> > I also defend the MORALITY* of violence in self
>> defense
>>
>> > or
>>
>> > defense of others (as long as it's proportionate) as I think
>>
>> > non-pacifist libertarians generally do; that doesn't mean I
>>
>> > think
>>
>> > it's necessarily a good idea, or the path I want to follow.
>>
>> > "Given that this body already censured him using that same
>>
>> > language..."
>>
>> > The fact of Arvin having already been censured (and
>>
>> > having
>>
>> > already faced removal) using the same language is a good
>> reason
>>
>> > not
>>
>> > to rely on that language referring to previous actions now.
>>
>> > Seems a
>>
>> > lot like double jeopardy.
>>
>> > And as I've said, I DON'T think his post was
>> acceptable.
>>
>> > If
>>
>> > he hadn't retracted it, I would have joined in asking him to
>>
>> > resign,
>>
>> > and if he didn't, possibly supported an APPROPRIATELY-WORDED
>>
>> > motion
>>
>> > for suspension.
>>
>> > I know why the non-aggression pledge exists, and am
>> a
>>
>> > strong
>>
>> > supporter of it. In fact I think it should probably be
>>
>> > strengthened
>>
>> > (require members to meet a stronger litmus test, such as
>> scoring
>>
>> > some minimum on the Nolan Chart, in order to hold leadership
>>
>> > positions in the party).
>>
>> > Love & Liberty,
>>
>> > ((( starchild )))
>>
>> > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> >
>>
>> > [3][4][5]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> >
>>
>> > (415) 625-FREE
>>
>> > @StarchildSF
>>
>> > *Apologies for the use of CAPS for emphasis, but italics and
>>
>> > boldface still don't work on this list since our switch to
>> new
>>
>> > email
>>
>> > servers.
>>
>> > On Apr 3, 2018, at 3:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> > Starchild--
>>
>> > ==I've seen no convincing argument that anything else
>>
>> > you've posted has been in violation of the Non-Aggression
>>
>> > Principle,===
>>
>> > Because you fall into the trap of the game of saying
>> something
>>
>> > different later. He defended the morality of violence
>> against
>>
>> > all
>>
>> > "enemy collaborators" such as teachers and school boards.
>>
>> > == yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a
>> preamble
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable
>> conduct
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into
>> disrepute"
>>
>> > appears
>>
>> > to take it as a given==
>>
>> > Given that this body already censured him using that same
>>
>> > language,
>>
>> > it
>>
>> > IS a given.
>>
>> > ==And does anyone really believe that an
>>
>> > ill-advised social media posting which has been disavowed
>> is
>>
>> > enough
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let
>> alone
>>
>> > the
>>
>> > entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.==
>>
>> > I do. The Party founders did. Your statements are in
>> ignorance
>>
>> > of
>>
>> > the
>>
>> > history of WHY we have that pledge to begin with.
>>
>> > == What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of
>> acknowledgment
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions
>> poses
>>
>> > a
>>
>> > far
>>
>> > greater risk to the party, the movement, and the security
>> of
>>
>> > party
>>
>> > members and members of society alike from State violence,
>> than
>>
>> > does
>>
>> > someone occasionally going too far.==
>>
>> > I don't have a scale of what harms more, but talking about an
>>
>> > exaggeration, I routinely rail against failure to take
>> strongly
>>
>> > libertarian positions. This is not an either/or.
>>
>> > But your vote is your vote - you think a wink/wink joke about
>>
>> > violence
>>
>> > in the whole context of his rhetoric is acceptable. Let's
>> say a
>>
>> > pro-lifers routinely called doctors murderers and accessories
>> to
>>
>> > murder
>>
>> > (or let's say - enemy collaborators) and then "joked" about
>>
>> > bombing
>>
>> > an
>>
>> > abortion clinic --- how would that fly? Like a lead
>> zeppelin.
>>
>> > Just
>>
>> > like this does.
>>
>> > Once again we prove that freedom must mean that bullies get
>> to
>>
>> > walk
>>
>> > all
>>
>> > over people, conduct outrageous acts, and there is no will to
>>
>> > disassociate. The LNC is the biggest proof that voluntary
>>
>> > government
>>
>> > will not protect the vulnerable - we can't even take care of
>> our
>>
>> > own
>>
>> > problems.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Starchild
>>
>> > <[1][4][5][6]starchild at lp.org>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Arvin,
>>
>> > As I wrote in a previous message here, my reading of
>> your
>>
>> > social
>>
>> > media
>>
>> > post is that it was over the line, and unlike any of
>> your
>>
>> > previous
>>
>> > posts, actually did appear to advocate for the
>> initiation of
>>
>> > force.
>>
>> > Since the post at that time had apparently not been made
>>
>> > public,
>>
>> > and
>>
>> > was not made in an LP forum, it was my hope that we
>> would
>>
>> > not
>>
>> > risk
>>
>> > damaging the party's reputation by officially taking it
>> up
>>
>> > here
>>
>> > and
>>
>> > thereby making it public and an official party matter,
>> but
>>
>> > rather
>>
>> > call
>>
>> > for your resignation as individuals.
>>
>> > While I don't disagree with you as far as the moral �
>> as
>>
>> > opposed to
>>
>> > practical � justification for defensive violence
>> against
>>
>> > individuals
>>
>> > who are causing aggression, not all government personnel
>> fit
>>
>> > into
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > category. There are Libertarian Party members and others
>>
>> > serving
>>
>> > on
>>
>> > school boards who are fighting to reduce aggression, not
>>
>> > increase
>>
>> > it,
>>
>> > and an implicit sanction of indiscriminate violence
>> against
>>
>> > such
>>
>> > a
>>
>> > broad category of people in government would amount to a
>>
>> > willingness to
>>
>> > sacrifice such individuals as "collateral damage" in
>>
>> > contravention of
>>
>> > their individual rights.
>>
>> > However, you have disavowed and apologized for the post,
>> and
>>
>> > said
>>
>> > enough here about routinely arguing against the use of
>>
>> > violence
>>
>> > against
>>
>> > the State and for the use of minimal force and the
>>
>> > nonviolent
>>
>> > approach
>>
>> > advocated by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, to
>> make
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > disavowal credible. If anyone attempts to use this to
>> attack
>>
>> > the
>>
>> > LP,
>>
>> > now that it has been officially raised in a motion here,
>>
>> > they
>>
>> > will have
>>
>> > to overcome the fact that this was a personal post by
>> one LP
>>
>> > official
>>
>> > who subsequently retracted it and apologized for his
>> words
>>
>> > as
>>
>> > having
>>
>> > been a joke in poor taste.
>>
>> > While I wish you would better think some of these things
>>
>> > through
>>
>> > before
>>
>> > posting, I don't see a personal post by an LNC member on
>> a
>>
>> > social
>>
>> > media
>>
>> > site, not in the name of the party, which the member has
>>
>> > clearly
>>
>> > retracted and apologized for as having been an
>> inappropriate
>>
>> > joke, as
>>
>> > sufficient cause for involuntary removal from office.
>> Mere
>>
>> > poor
>>
>> > judgment in the matter of deciding what to post via
>> one's
>>
>> > personal
>>
>> > social media accounts seems less important to me on the
>>
>> > whole
>>
>> > than poor
>>
>> > judgment in deciding how to vote on substantive party
>>
>> > matters,
>>
>> > and if I
>>
>> > had to rank each member of the LNC on that basis, you
>> would
>>
>> > not
>>
>> > come
>>
>> > out at the bottom. I'm also mindful of your apparent
>> state
>>
>> > of
>>
>> > mind,
>>
>> > which again seems to reflect an excess of healthy
>>
>> > libertarian
>>
>> > sentiment
>>
>> > against the aggression and abuses of the State, rather
>> than
>>
>> > a
>>
>> > lack of
>>
>> > it. I accept your retraction and apology.
>>
>> > From the wording of the motion for suspension, it
>> appears
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > some
>>
>> > members of this body are again seeking your involuntary
>>
>> > removal
>>
>> > � this
>>
>> > time without the due process of holding a meeting � on
>>
>> > account
>>
>> > of
>>
>> > previous posts for which you have already been censured.
>>
>> > Furthermore I believe the wording of the motion is
>> sloppy
>>
>> > and
>>
>> > contains
>>
>> > inaccuracies. I've seen no convincing argument that
>> anything
>>
>> > else
>>
>> > you've posted has been in violation of the
>> Non-Aggression
>>
>> > Principle,
>>
>> > yet the "Whereas" clause citing that principle as a
>> preamble
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > accusing you of "sustained and repeated unacceptable
>> conduct
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > brings the principles of the Libertarian Party into
>>
>> > disrepute"
>>
>> > appears
>>
>> > to take it as a given that you've repeatedly acted in
>>
>> > contravention of
>>
>> > this as well as other unnamed principles. It is also
>>
>> > inaccurate
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > speak of you bringing the principles of the Libertarian
>>
>> > Party
>>
>> > into
>>
>> > disrepute. Bringing a group's adherence to principles
>> into
>>
>> > disrepute is
>>
>> > not the same as bringing the principles themselves into
>>
>> > disrepute. The
>>
>> > principles stand regardless of how often or how
>> egregiously
>>
>> > members of
>>
>> > society violate them. And does anyone really believe
>> that an
>>
>> > ill-advised social media posting which has been
>> disavowed is
>>
>> > enough to
>>
>> > "endanger the survival" [emphasis added] of the LP, let
>>
>> > alone
>>
>> > the
>>
>> > entire freedom movement? This is gross exaggeration.
>>
>> > What is perhaps most troubling is the lack of
>> acknowledgment
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > routinely failing to take strongly libertarian positions
>>
>> > poses
>>
>> > a
>>
>> > far
>>
>> > greater risk to the party, the movement, and the
>> security of
>>
>> > party
>>
>> > members and members of society alike from State
>> violence,
>>
>> > than
>>
>> > does
>>
>> > someone occasionally going too far.
>>
>> > I vote no on the motion.
>>
>> > Love & Liberty,
>>
>> > ((( starchild )))
>>
>> > At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>> [1][2][5][6]RealReform at earthlink.
>>
>> > net
>>
>> > (415) 625-FREE
>>
>> > @StarchildSF
>>
>> > On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
>>
>> > Since some were unable to see my video response to
>> this,
>>
>> > here is
>>
>> > something else I posted on mewe on this issue:
>>
>> > As you may have heard, some on the LNC are once again
>>
>> > working to
>>
>> > suspend me from the LNC, based on an inappropriate
>> joke I
>>
>> > made on
>>
>> > [1][3][6][7]mewe.com. The joke was in poor taste, and
>> I
>>
>> > have
>>
>> >
>>
>> > already
>>
>> > apologized
>>
>> > for it, and clarified my actual position (specifically,
>> that
>>
>> > I
>>
>> > don't
>>
>> > advocate for shooting school boards. I would have
>> considered
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > obvious, but sometimes tone gets lost in social media).
>>
>> > But it is, I have to say, interesting to see the
>> cognitive
>>
>> > dissonance
>>
>> > that is growing within the Libertarian Party. Every day,
>> I
>>
>> > hear
>>
>> > taxation is theft. We even have new LP t-shirts that say
>>
>> > taxation
>>
>> > is
>>
>> > theft (they are a great way to support the LP and spread
>> the
>>
>> > message).
>>
>> > We agree that taxation is an immoral violation of your
>>
>> > sacred
>>
>> > rights.
>>
>> > We also have routinely argued that guns are not for
>> hunting,
>>
>> > they
>>
>> > are
>>
>> > for opposing government overreach. I've spoken
>> officially on
>>
>> > this
>>
>> > issue. I've said this to cheering Libertarian and
>>
>> > Conservative
>>
>> > groups,
>>
>> > to furious progressive groups. I know many of you have
>> made
>>
>> > the
>>
>> > same
>>
>> > argument.
>>
>> > We talk about how wrong it is for the government to rob
>> us
>>
>> > and
>>
>> > use
>>
>> > the
>>
>> > money for immoral actions like the drug war, foreign
>> wars,
>>
>> > and
>>
>> > government schools. A few minutes later, we talk about
>> how
>>
>> > guns
>>
>> > are
>>
>> > necessary to block government tyranny and overreach.
>>
>> > I've routinely argued against any violence against the
>>
>> > state,
>>
>> > since I
>>
>> > consider it unlikely to work. But for all the hardcore
>> gun
>>
>> > supporters
>>
>> > who wear taxation is theft t-shirts: what is the level
>> of
>>
>> > tyranny
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > would be great enough to morally justify using violence
>> in
>>
>> > self
>>
>> > defense?
>>
>> > Is being locked up in a government rape cage for a
>>
>> > victimless
>>
>> > crime
>>
>> > not
>>
>> > enough moral justification? Is having your son or
>> daughter
>>
>> > locked
>>
>> > up
>>
>> > in
>>
>> > such a rape cage not enough justification? Is being
>> robbed
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > have
>>
>> > your
>>
>> > money used to bomb people in other countries, in your
>> name
>>
>> > not
>>
>> > enough?
>>
>> > What level of tyranny would morally justify using the
>> Second
>>
>> > Amendmend
>>
>> > for what it was designed for?
>>
>> > Just to be clear: I am not, have not ever, and have no
>> plans
>>
>> > to
>>
>> > ever
>>
>> > advocate violence against the state. I consider it
>>
>> > unnecessary. I
>>
>> > believe that Dr. King and Gandhi have showed that
>> violence
>>
>> > is
>>
>> > not
>>
>> > needed to fight the state. I consider it unlikely to
>> work.
>>
>> > As
>>
>> > long
>>
>> > as
>>
>> > the state keeps duping young men and women to join its
>>
>> > enforcement
>>
>> > arm,
>>
>> > I can't imagine any violent revolution lasting more than
>> a
>>
>> > few
>>
>> > minutes.
>>
>> > As someone who trained for many years in the martial
>> arts, I
>>
>> > also
>>
>> > consider it against my personal principles to use a
>> greater
>>
>> > response
>>
>> > than what is needed. I believe in the doctrine of
>> minimal
>>
>> > force,
>>
>> > which
>>
>> > is why I work within the LP, not within a citizen
>> militia.
>>
>> > But is using a gun to defend yourself against state
>> violence
>>
>> > immoral?
>>
>> > God no. And violence certainly includes any violation
>> done
>>
>> > under
>>
>> > threat
>>
>> > of violence.
>>
>> > Respectfully,
>>
>> > Arvin Vohra
>>
>> > Vice Chair
>>
>> > Libertarian Party
>>
>> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Hewitt
>>
>> >
>>
>> > <[2][4][7][8][7]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > I vote Yes. Jeff Hewitt Region 4 Representative
>>
>> > On 2018-04-03 05:07, Sam Goldstein wrote:
>>
>> > Yes
>>
>> > ---
>>
>> > Sam Goldstein
>>
>> > Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> > [3]317-850-0726 Cell
>>
>> > On 2018-04-03 02:16, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>
>> > We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>
>> > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by April 12,
>>
>> > 2018
>>
>> > at
>>
>> > 11:59:59pm
>>
>> > Pacific time.
>>
>> > Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Hayes,
>> Goldstein,
>>
>> > Redpath,
>>
>> > Hewitt, O'Donnell
>>
>> > Motion:
>>
>> > WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party holds the
>> non-initiation
>>
>> > of
>>
>> > force
>>
>> > as its
>>
>> > cardinal principle and requires each of its members
>>
>> > certify
>>
>> > that
>>
>> > they
>>
>> > neither advocate or believe in violent means to
>> achieve
>>
>> > political
>>
>> > or
>>
>> > social goals.
>>
>> > RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> > suspends
>>
>> > Arvin
>>
>> > Vohra
>>
>> > from his position of Vice-Chair for sustained and
>>
>> > repeated
>>
>> > unacceptable
>>
>> > conduct that brings the principles of the
>> Libertarian
>>
>> > Party
>>
>> > into
>>
>> > disrepute, including making and defending a
>> statement
>>
>> > advocating
>>
>> > lethal
>>
>> > violence against state employees who are not
>> directly
>>
>> > threatening
>>
>> > imminent physical harm. Such action is in violation
>> of
>>
>> > our
>>
>> > membership
>>
>> > pledge. These actions further endanger the survival
>> of
>>
>> > our
>>
>> > movement and
>>
>> > the security of all of our members without their
>>
>> > consent.
>>
>> > -Alicia
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > Arvin Vohra
>>
>> >
>>
>> > [4][5][8][9][8]www.VoteVohra.com
>>
>> > [5][6][9][10][9]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > (301) 320-3634
>>
>> > References
>>
>> > 1. [2][7][10][11][10]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 2. [3][11]mailto:[8][11][12]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 3. [12]tel:317-850-0726
>>
>> > 4. [4][9][12][13][13]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 5. [5][14]mailto:[10][13][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > References
>>
>> > 1. [15]mailto:[11][14][15]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 2. [12][15][16][16]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 3. [17]mailto:[13][16][17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 4. [14][17][18][18]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 5. [19]mailto:[15][18][19]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > In Liberty,
>>
>> > Caryn Ann Harlos
>>
>> > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> > (Alaska,
>>
>> > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>>
>> > Washington)
>>
>> > - [16]Caryn.Ann. [2][20]Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > Communications Director, [17]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> > References
>>
>> > 1. [21]mailto:[19][20]starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 2. [22]mailto:[20][21]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 3. [21][22][23]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 4. [24]mailto:[22][23]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 5. [23][24][25]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 6. [26]mailto:[24][25]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 7. [25][26][27]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 8. [28]mailto:[26][27]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 9. [27][28][29]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 10. [30]mailto:[28][29]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 11. [31]mailto:[29][30]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 12. [30][31][32]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 13. [33]mailto:[31][32]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 14. [32][33][34]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 15. [35]mailto:[33][34]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 16. [36]mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 17. [35][35][37]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > In Liberty,
>>
>> > Caryn Ann Harlos
>>
>> > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>
>> > (Alaska,
>>
>> > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>>
>> > Washington)
>>
>> > - [36]Caryn.Ann. [3][38]Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > Communications Director, [37]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> > References
>>
>> > 1.
>> [4][36][39]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#
>>
>> > cite_note-2
>>
>> > 2. [5][40]mailto:[37]starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 3. [6][41]mailto:[38]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 4. [7][42]mailto:[39]starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 5. [8][43]mailto:[40]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 6. [9][41][44]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 7. [10][45]mailto:[42]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 8. [11][43][46]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 9. [12][47]mailto:[44]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 10. [13][45][48]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 11. [14][49]mailto:[46]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 12. [15][47][50]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 13. [16][51]mailto:[48]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 14. [17][52]mailto:[49]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 15. [18][50][53]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 16. [19][54]mailto:[51]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 17. [20][52][55]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 18. [21][56]mailto:[53]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 19. [22][57]mailto:[54]starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 20. [23][58]mailto:[55]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 21. [24][56][59]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 22. [25][60]mailto:[57]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 23. [26][58][61]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 24. [27][62]mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 25. [28][60][63]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 26. [29][64]mailto:[61]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 27. [30][62][65]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 28. [31][66]mailto:[63]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 29. [32][67]mailto:[64]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 30. [33][65][68]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 31. [34][69]mailto:[66]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 32. [35][67][70]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 33. [36][71]mailto:[68]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 34. [37][72]mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 35. [38][70][73]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > 36. [39][74]mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 37. [40][72][75]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > References
>>
>> > 1. [76]mailto:[73]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 2. [77]mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 3. [78]mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 4. [76][79]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_
>>
>> > Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
>>
>> > 5. [80]mailto:[77]starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 6. [81]mailto:[78]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 7. [82]mailto:[79]starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 8. [83]mailto:[80]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 9. [81][84]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 10. [85]mailto:[82]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 11. [83][86]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 12. [87]mailto:[84]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 13. [85][88]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 14. [89]mailto:[86]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 15. [87][90]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 16. [91]mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 17. [92]mailto:[89]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 18. [90][93]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 19. [94]mailto:[91]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 20. [92][95]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 21. [96]mailto:[93]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 22. [97]mailto:[94]starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 23. [98]mailto:[95]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 24. [96][99]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 25. [100]mailto:[97]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 26. [98][101]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 27. [102]mailto:[99]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 28. [100][103]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 29. [104]mailto:[101]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 30. [102][105]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 31. [106]mailto:[103]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 32. [107]mailto:[104]RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 33. [105][108]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 34. [109]mailto:[106]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 35. [107][110]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 36. [111]mailto:[108]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 37. [112]mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 38. [110][113]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > 39. [114]mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 40. [112][115]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> >
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > In Liberty,
>>
>> > Caryn Ann Harlos
>>
>> > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>
>> > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
>> Washington)
>>
>> > - [113]Caryn.Ann. [116]Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > Communications Director, [114]Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> >
>>
>> > References
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 1. [117]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 2. [118]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 3. [119]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 4. [120]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 5. [121]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 6. [122]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 7. [123]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 8. [124]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 9. [125]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 10. [126]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 11. [127]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 12. [128]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 13. [129]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 14. [130]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 15. [131]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 16. [132]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 17. [133]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 18. [134]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 19. [135]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 20. [136]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 21. [137]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 22. [138]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 23. [139]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 24. [140]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 25. [141]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 26. [142]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 27. [143]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 28. [144]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 29. [145]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 30. [146]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 31. [147]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 32. [148]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 33. [149]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 34. [150]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 35. [151]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > 36. [152]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_
>> note-2
>>
>> > 37. [153]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 38. [154]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 39. [155]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 40. [156]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 41. [157]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 42. [158]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 43. [159]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 44. [160]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 45. [161]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 46. [162]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 47. [163]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 48. [164]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 49. [165]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 50. [166]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 51. [167]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 52. [168]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 53. [169]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 54. [170]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 55. [171]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 56. [172]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 57. [173]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 58. [174]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 59. [175]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 60. [176]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 61. [177]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 62. [178]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 63. [179]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 64. [180]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 65. [181]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 66. [182]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 67. [183]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 68. [184]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 69. [185]mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 70. [186]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > 71. [187]mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 72. [188]http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > 73. [189]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 74. [190]mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 75. [191]mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 76. [192]http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_
>> note-2
>>
>> > 77. [193]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 78. [194]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 79. [195]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 80. [196]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 81. [197]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 82. [198]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 83. [199]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 84. [200]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 85. [201]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 86. [202]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 87. [203]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 88. [204]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 89. [205]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 90. [206]http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 91. [207]mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 92. [208]http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 93. [209]mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 94. [210]mailto:starchild at lp.org
>>
>> > 95. [211]mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 96. http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 97. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 98. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 99. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 100. http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 101. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 102. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 103. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 104. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>> > 105. http://mewe.com/
>>
>> > 106. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>>
>> > 107. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>>
>> > 108. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>
>> > 109. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 110. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > 111. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 112. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> > 113. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>>
>> > 114. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>>
>> References
>>
>> 1. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 2. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 3. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 4. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 5. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 6. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 7. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 8. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 9. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 10. http://mewe.com/
>> 11. mailto:[8][11][12]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 12. tel:317-850-0726
>> 13. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 14. mailto:[10][13][14]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 15. mailto:[11][14][15]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 16. http://mewe.com/
>> 17. mailto:[13][16][17]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 18. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 19. mailto:[15][18][19]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 20. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>> 21. mailto:[19][20]starchild at lp.org
>> 22. mailto:[20][21]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 23. http://mewe.com/
>> 24. mailto:[22][23]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 25. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 26. mailto:[24][25]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 27. http://mewe.com/
>> 28. mailto:[26][27]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 29. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 30. mailto:[28][29]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 31. mailto:[29][30]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 32. http://mewe.com/
>> 33. mailto:[31][32]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 34. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 35. mailto:[33][34]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 36. mailto:[34]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 37. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 38. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>> 39. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge
>> 40. mailto:[37]starchild at lp.org
>> 41. mailto:[38]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 42. mailto:[39]starchild at lp.org
>> 43. mailto:[40]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 44. http://mewe.com/
>> 45. mailto:[42]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 46. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 47. mailto:[44]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 48. http://mewe.com/
>> 49. mailto:[46]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 50. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 51. mailto:[48]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 52. mailto:[49]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 53. http://mewe.com/
>> 54. mailto:[51]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 55. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 56. mailto:[53]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 57. mailto:[54]starchild at lp.org
>> 58. mailto:[55]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 59. http://mewe.com/
>> 60. mailto:[57]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 61. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 62. mailto:[59]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 63. http://mewe.com/
>> 64. mailto:[61]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 65. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 66. mailto:[63]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 67. mailto:[64]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 68. http://mewe.com/
>> 69. mailto:[66]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 70. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 71. mailto:[68]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 72. mailto:[69]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 73. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 74. mailto:[71]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 75. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 76. mailto:[73]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 77. mailto:[74]Harlos at LP.org
>> 78. mailto:[75]Harlos at LP.org
>> 79. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_
>> 80. mailto:[77]starchild at lp.org
>> 81. mailto:[78]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 82. mailto:[79]starchild at lp.org
>> 83. mailto:[80]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 84. http://mewe.com/
>> 85. mailto:[82]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 86. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 87. mailto:[84]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 88. http://mewe.com/
>> 89. mailto:[86]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 90. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 91. mailto:[88]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 92. mailto:[89]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 93. http://mewe.com/
>> 94. mailto:[91]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 95. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 96. mailto:[93]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 97. mailto:[94]starchild at lp.org
>> 98. mailto:[95]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 99. http://mewe.com/
>> 100. mailto:[97]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 101. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 102. mailto:[99]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 103. http://mewe.com/
>> 104. mailto:[101]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 105. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 106. mailto:[103]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 107. mailto:[104]RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 108. http://mewe.com/
>> 109. mailto:[106]jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 110. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 111. mailto:[108]VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 112. mailto:[109]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 113. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 114. mailto:[111]Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 115. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 116. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>> 117. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 118. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 119. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 120. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 121. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 122. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 123. http://mewe.com/
>> 124. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 125. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 126. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 127. http://mewe.com/
>> 128. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 129. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 130. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 131. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 132. http://mewe.com/
>> 133. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 134. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 135. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 136. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 137. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 138. http://mewe.com/
>> 139. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 140. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 141. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 142. http://mewe.com/
>> 143. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 144. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 145. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 146. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 147. http://mewe.com/
>> 148. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 149. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 150. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 151. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 152. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
>> 153. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 154. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 155. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 156. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 157. http://mewe.com/
>> 158. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 159. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 160. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 161. http://mewe.com/
>> 162. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 163. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 164. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 165. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 166. http://mewe.com/
>> 167. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 168. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 169. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 170. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 171. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 172. http://mewe.com/
>> 173. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 174. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 175. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 176. http://mewe.com/
>> 177. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 178. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 179. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 180. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 181. http://mewe.com/
>> 182. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 183. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 184. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 185. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 186. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 187. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
>> 188. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
>> 189. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 190. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>> 191. mailto:Harlos at LP.org
>> 192. http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge#cite_note-2
>> 193. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 194. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 195. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 196. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 197. http://mewe.com/
>> 198. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 199. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 200. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 201. http://mewe.com/
>> 202. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 203. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 204. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 205. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>> 206. http://mewe.com/
>> 207. mailto:jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
>> 208. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
>> 209. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
>> 210. mailto:starchild at lp.org
>> 211. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *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/>
> 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 at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.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*
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list