[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-05: Suspension of Arvin Vohra
Sam Goldstein
sam.goldstein at lp.org
Thu Apr 5 13:34:45 EDT 2018
Can you those of you engaged in endless debate please take it off the
voting thread so better track can be kept of votes on this matter?
Thanks,
---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell
On 2018-04-05 11:51, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> I am serious. Thanks for talking down to me though.
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:43 AM <[1]david.demarest at lp.org> wrote:
>
> 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 <[2]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
> <[3]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
> <[4]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, <[5]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 <[6]lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> On
> Behalf Of
> >> Starchild
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 5:55 AM
> >> To: [7]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][8]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][9]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][10]RealReform at earthlink.net
> >>
> >> > (415) 625-FREE
> >>
> >> > @StarchildSF
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Starchild
> >>
> >> > <[2][3][4][11]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][12]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][13]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][14]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
> >
>
> --
>
> --
> In Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming,
> Washington)
> - [15]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, [16]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. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
> 2. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
> 3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> 5. mailto:david.demarest at lp.org
> 6. mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
> 7. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 8. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> 9. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> 10. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> 11. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> 12. mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net
> 13. mailto:starchild at lp.org
> 14. http://mewe.com/
> 15. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
> 16. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list