<div dir="auto">Bravo, Arvin - well said. Your intellectual bluntness has served us well both internally and with our core Libertarian-leaning cousins, coupled with strategic, targeted and tested messaging techniques geared to the broader audience who are not yet acquainted with our principles and focused where the broader audience is in their struggles with the pervasive big government status quo.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is time for the Libertarian Party to mature beyond politically-correct platitudes aimed at obvious personal damage control that might make us feel more comfortable with our moral dilemma failings that you elevated our awareness on. However, those politically-correct squawkings fool nobody as Gary Johnson (love and trust Gary) learned to his chagrin during the 2016 campaign.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">None of us became Libertarians overnight and we are all still learning, thanks, Arvin, to your courage and intellectual fortitude in helping the Libertarian Party cope more honestly with our moral dilemma discomforts and mature beyond politically-correct platitudes.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thoughts?</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 19, 2017 1:13 PM, "Arvin Vohra" <<a href="mailto:votevohra@gmail.com">votevohra@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>As debate on this motion has begun, I will speak on it. The issue before us appears primarily one of strategy. I have not gone off platform, supported assault weapons bans, opposed the NAP, opposed business rights to serve or not serve customers, supported "revenue neutral" taxation, or supported government schooling. The issue is that I was, simply put, too rude for an effective strategy. My bluntness, in other words, is unstrategic.</div><div><br></div><div>But the lessons of politics teach us otherwise. We can look at recent politics, in which the least polite, least apologetic person on earth was elected president. Or we can look at the rapidly growing groups on both the left and right that share blunt, anti-establishment views which they express unapologetically. From a strictly strategic stance, bluntness seems to work in politics today. It may turn off specific individuals who were brought in with messaging that traded a short term gain for a long term loss, but in terms of real, long term strategy that happens over an election cycle, not a weekend, I don't see any convincing proof that bluntness is unstrategic.</div><div><br></div><div>But I'd also like to speak specifically about third party politics. The assumption appears to be that third parties must be overly meek, unwilling to hurt anyone's feelings, challenge anyone's world view, or go anywhere near anyone's cognitive dissonance. A third party cannot afford to, the argument goes, challenge a large scale immoral behavior done through a corrupted institution, because it lacks the political capital do do so.</div><div><br></div><div>Reality disagrees. The last successful third party was also quite rude, and challenged America on an immoral behavior in which the perpetrators suffered from considerable cognitive dissonance. This immoral behavior was done by a large percentage of the population. It was the foundation for a major part of American culture, and that culture is still romanticized today, in movies like Gone With The Wind. The issue was slavery. The rude, blunt opposition to slavery gave the Republicans the presidency, and made that "third party" a dominant party. They opposed not only the act of slavery, but the perpetrators of slavery.</div><div><br></div><div>Was their position divisive? Without question. The Republican position on slavery was as divisive as any position on any issue has been. It arguably lead to a civil war. But it was the moral stance, and history has shown it to be the strategic stance. Anyone met any Whig candidates lately?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>In Liberty,</div><div><br></div><div>Arvin Vohra</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:05 PM, David Demarest <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dprattdemarest@gmail.com" target="_blank">dprattdemarest@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Wow, I am in seventh heaven! Now we are really getting somewhere thanks to Arvin rudely giving us a swift kick in the backside. I propose to celebrate the rebirth of the Libertarian Party as we begin the painful process of reexamining our core principles, our timid responses to the moral dilemmas imposed on us courtesy of the government with the permission of the majority and how we can thoughtfully respond to courageous attempts to get us off our intellectual posteriors.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Excrutiating as it may be, I am ecstatic at the progress we are making now and the exciting potential for much more as we grow our party. And the timing is perfect as we build on huge gains and exposure achieved in the 2016 elections and prepare for exponential growth in 2018 and 2020.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There is hope for the Libertarian Party after all!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thoughts? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">~David Pratt</div></div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669HOEnZb"><div class="m_-3299482773484181669h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 19, 2017 11:15 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I have heard from a majority of the Region 1 Chairs in writing and they are opposed (5 directly opposed, some of them strongly so, and one undecided though leaning to disapproval if it is merely "for cause" which is our language), thus, I will not co-sponsor this motion. <div><br></div><div>If it came to be sponsored by 4 total (it requires more than a second) and came to a vote, I would re-poll the State Chairs and then depending upon that result, personally write each Region 1 delegate from 2016. I have received overwhelming support for this methodology.</div><div><br></div><div>The more informal input I have received from membership (either though email, calls, text, and other messages) has been split with no clear consensus.<br><div><br></div><div>-Caryn Ann</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Steven Nielson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stevennielson@lpwa.org" target="_blank">stevennielson@lpwa.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span><div dir="auto">Distinguished Leaders of the LNC - </div><div dir="auto"><br></div></span><div>The gravity of the situation, the very substance of all arguments and opinion shared, demands action from the body resulting in an official stance and statement. Removing my opinion of the content of the arguments, it is the action and representation of the party that we have an obligation to address. </div><div><br></div><div>It is simply stated: Are we (in all of our capacity as representatives of the LNC) obligated to conduct ourselves and our message in a manner that represents the position and intention of the Libertarian Party? Furthermore, if any member or group of members of this body conduct themselves in a manner that may impact, either positively or negatively, the status of the Libertarian Party do we not have an obligation to officially address such actions in rebuke or affirmation?</div><div><br></div><div>Let the motion that has been made be seconded, and then let us enter into official record the argument of our position, and let us as a body bring closure to question of conduct of our leadership and members of this body. This is our opportunity to lead as elected officials of the LNC and to affirm our Code of Conduct as representatives of this Party. </div><div><br></div><div>To address the removal - such a motion will only pass upon 2/3 vote. It is unlikely that Mr. Vohra will be suspended from his role as the Vice-Chair. However, this vote provides the opportunity to make a formal statement by this body on the very public actions, and our expectations. That is a statement needed, as I have held since this has come to pass.</div><span><div><br></div><div>In Liberty,</div><div>Steven M. Nielson</div><div>Alternate Regional Rep. Region 1</div></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><em><font face="Garamond" size="4"><div dir="ltr"><em><font face="Garamond" size="4">Steven M. Nielson</font></em></div><div><em><font face="Garamond" size="4"><strong>State Field Director - Johnson for President</strong></font></em></div><div><em><font face="Garamond" size="4"><strong>Region 1 Alternate to LP</strong></font></em></div></font></em><div><font face="Garamond" size="4"><strong><em>Former Chairperson 2015-2016,</em></strong></font></div><div><font face="garamond,serif"><em><font size="4"><strong>Libertarian Party of Washington State <br></strong><a href="tel:360-662-6362" value="+13606626362" target="_blank">360-662-6362</a><br><img width="345" height="66" style="width:223px;min-height:63px" src="http://lpwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/WA_Logo_gray.png"><span></span><span></span></font></em></font></div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Steven Nekhaila <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steven.nekhaila@gmail.com" target="_blank">steven.nekhaila@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>As libertarians, it can sometimes be difficult to walk the fine line between polarizing political policies and emotional arguments, some of which are closely intertwined. Warfare and the US military is a very sensitive topic, when libertarians discuss foreign policy veterans often times react in complete adherence or extreme disgust to even mundane criticisms of the military. During my time in University, protesting and tabling against military intervention, I have had many active duty and retired veterans enthusiastically disagree with me, and many agree as well. I personally respect the warrior ethos and I believe soldiers have a very crucial role in our society and in the defense of liberty, however, I would also agree that US foreign policy is not just destructive to US interests at home, but to the soldiers themselves. Just a few weeks ago at the Libertarian Party of Florida State convention I had the chance to talk to a Gulf War veteran in length who would whole-hardheartedly agree with our Vice Chair's comments regarding the military as it reflected his feelings towards himself and his role in the Gulf War conflict, there are many such Libertarians like him. Since then, many veterans have come out in defiance of our Vice Chair's comments as well, voicing their concerns over the dismissive language used in his statements. I have even had the Secretary of my local affiliate re-register NPA because he agreed with our Vice Chair but disagreed with those voicing dissent regarding his comments. The topic of foreign policy is a topic very close to many libertarians hearts and contains many nuances and subtleties while being highly emotional for most with strong convictions leaning one way or the other. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this is an important moment of internal discourse for the Party and a moment to reconcile conflicting views of the military and its veterans. <br><br></div>The reason in which I would not support this motion is simply because our Vice Chair's comments can be seen as a legitimate point of expression in a libertarian context, while Larry's view is also legitimate. Both views agree that foreign policy must be reformed and both agree that current foreign policy is destructive to the soldiers and the victims of combat, therein lies the problem and the difference between the Board of Directors of a business and the Libertarian Party. I have friends on both sides of the aisle that have served and would pick sides in this argument, they are both inherently libertarian arguments. While I completely agree that sensitive polarizing discussions deserve nuanced explanations and attention to detail in attempt to avoid alienating large passionate voting blocks, (during the Ron Paul for President campaign veterans donated more to his campaign than all other candidates combined, during the Gary Johnson campaign for President veterans polled more support for Gary Johnson than any other candidate), I also agree that this kind of discourse is unavoidable and ought to be addressed in attempt to reach some sort of working consensus to bring libertarians together and fighting for foreign policy reform. For years the Libertarian Party has attracted fervent anti-war protesters and combat veterans, and for years they have been able to fight under the same banner, we need a reconciliation and public discourse. I would be in favor of a public statement emphasizing our diverse membership and our Party's ability to bring together people from both ends of the spectrum to fight for a common goal, perhaps written by the Chair or voted on. This would be a much more constructive step in mending the situation rather than polarizing our members from both sides. I would also state that I hope our Vice Chair would take note of the facts above, and as an ambassador of this Party's leadership, attempt to lay out his arguments carefully when discussing nuanced points without self-censoring. <br><br></div>In Liberty,<br><br></div>Steven Nekhaila<br></div>Region 2 Representative Alt<br></div>Steven.Nekhaila@LP.org<br><div><a href="tel:(305)%20393-6412" value="+13053936412" target="_blank">305-393-6412</a><br></div></div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404HOEnZb"><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Starchild <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net" target="_blank">sfdreamer@earthlink.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Reading these messages, I regret not having taken the time to speak out more strongly on this matter sooner. Frankly, I did not think it would come to this, and am sorry to see it. I did not believe anyone on this body would propose to <b><i>remove from office</i></b> one of our members over the kind of remarks in question, even if they had been made in a more official capacity and not as remarks posted on a personal page.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Some of our vice-chair's posts have been undiplomatically written, no question. But they were <b><i>not</i></b> akin to an LNC member making racist or misogynist comments! The difference should, I hope, be obvious to everyone upon a bit of reflection – racism and sexism are directly contrary to libertarian principles, whereas if Arvin is guilty of anything besides injudicious wording, it is of being <b><i>too</i></b> passionately and radically libertarian. He has effectively challenged us to uphold, or at least consider, a higher standard of libertarian ethics that entails making fewer compromises with government, than some of us – perhaps many of us – are comfortable with. That to me is the kind of thing a Libertarian leader <b><i>should</i></b> be doing – encouraging us to examine our lives and how we can be more libertarian. Could Arvin have chosen some of his words more wisely? I certainly think so! But the spirit of his remarks was strongly anti-authoritarian, and that matters more than the wording. I also disagree that he is lacking remorse or empathy. In his "Open Letter to Military Veterans", he wrote, <i>"</i><span class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-style-span" style="color:rgb(29,33,41);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-style:italic">During the last days, I've spoken to dozens of you, both privately and publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation. </span><span class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-style-span" style="color:rgb(29,33,41);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"><i>To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose." </i> How much more "remorseful" or "empathetic" can he get without undermining the basic truth that he was (perhaps insensitively) originally trying to express!?</span></div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>In a previous post, I made reference to my own compromises or shortcomings as a libertarian, which include having worked as a soldier for the U.S. government. Fortunately this didn't end up putting me in circumstances where I killed anyone for an unjust cause, but I did voluntarily put myself in a position where that <i>could</i> have happened, or where I might have had to make some very tough choices, perhaps running the risk of ending up like Chelsea Manning who is only this month finally seeing the end of seven years behind bars as a result of her conscientious choice to be a whistleblower. In libertarian terms, my putting on a uniform was a mistake, although ironically it may have been for the good of the movement in that I think seeing the experience of being a soldier and seeing the U.S. government's military from the inside probably hastened my evolution as a libertarian! I consciously avoid the term "veteran" with regard to my time in the U.S. Army Reserves, by the way. I am a <i>veteran</i> of many things, as are we all – in my case I am a veteran of attending government schools, working in movie theaters, providing erotic services, etc. Applying this term to one type of experience only, as if it were uniquely honorable, when in fact it is an experience more likely than most to involve contributing to the <i>harm</i> caused by government is, I believe, an error best avoided. I also use the term "worked" rather than "served", because I was drawing a paycheck. While getting a paycheck wasn't my sole motivation – I was embarrassingly patriotic at the time – I would not have signed up without it, and in my experience this was <b><i>universally</i></b> true of fellow soldiers I encountered. I do not recall meeting a single person during my military career who gave me the impression that s/he would have volunteered to be there, performing the work we did, without any compensation. If I had, I would have been either extremely impressed, or harbored doubts about his or her sanity. Possibly both! Of far, far greater <i>service</i>, I believe, has been my largely unpaid work in the freedom movement – service that I believe the vast majority of you reading this have also performed – and for <i><b>that</b></i>, not for any uniform you may have worn, you deserve the world's profound thanks and gratitude. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Let's keep in mind our objectives here. Many of you have probably heard the quote, <i>"What if they held a war and no one showed up?"</i> While giving offense should not be our aim, discouraging people from going to work for government in harmful capacities <i>should</i> be our aim, unless they are taking those positions with a conscious, dedicated resolve to work for freedom from "the inside". It's difficult to further that aim of discouraging people from "showing up" for war, while employing language that treats government soldiers, and former government soldiers, as somehow uniquely deserving of respect or admiration. To be clear, I'm <b><i>not</i></b> saying that I became a bad person when I entered the U.S. government's military, or that my fellow soldiers were bad people; but I don't think we were exceptionally good or heroic people either, compared to others I've encountered in other contexts. Some – not all – of the individuals I met in the government's military struck me as, on the whole, admirable human beings, something I've found generally true in other communities with which I've had experience. Do I think that they, and I, were also <i>"accessories to murder"</i>, one of the phrases for which Arvin is being pilloried? It's probably not a phrase I would deliberately choose, because I think it could equally apply to so many of us, in so many other contexts, that it seems unfair to apply it just to soldiers who don't happen to be the ones pulling the triggers or pushing the buttons that result in the deaths of people who did not deserve to be killed. Just as I don't think soldiers should be uniquely elevated for honor or praise, neither is it fair to cast undue opprobrium in their direction. Lots of people, including probably most of you reading this and certainly including myself, both in and out of uniform, have undoubtedly contributed indirectly in one way or another to murder by government. Taxpayers who've provided funds to buy weaponry and munitions (I have). And yes, taxes are involuntary, but have you done all that you can to minimize your tax payments by taking only the lowest-paid over-the-table work necessary for survival? (I can't say that I've done this; probably like most of us, I would snap at a higher-paying job doing something I enjoy, even knowing I'd be paying higher taxes that help fund government murder. Shame on me.) People who've written letters or posted comments encouraging nationalism (I have, though not recently). People who've voted for politicians who expand the size/cost/power of government (I have, though again not recently – I hope!). Et cetera. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Of course it's easier to make these admissions about oneself than to have such truths pointed out to you by someone else, especially if they aren't simultaneously acknowledging their own culpability, in which case the usual human reaction, which few of us have magnanimous enough spirits to suppress, is to take offense. The truth of this has probably been drummed home to Arvin in recent days. But <i>the choice of whether or not to be offended is always up to each of us</i>, because how we feel about what we hear is likely related to which identity or concept of ourself we choose to see as most important. We all have multiple identities upon which we base our self-images – soldiers, teachers, Catholics, Jews, parents, children, students, retirees, of Asian or African ancestry, into woodworking, volleyball, birdwatching, and so on. But given our purpose of achieving a free world in our lifetimes, the Libertarian Party should encourage people to identify first and foremost as individuals who have the right to freedom and are committed to defending that right, for themselves and others. Because freedom is the commonality that goes broadest and deepest. It is the one identity out of all those mentioned above and many more that is shared by every human being on earth, maybe even by all <i>life</i>. I<b>t can and should be what unites us. But we won't be able to realize that unity if we put other identities, such as being a former soldier, or a teacher, or whatever, ahead of our identity as free beings, so that when we hear a pro-freedom message expressed in a manner that threatens one of those other identities, we rush to defend that identity instead of remembering, or being open to learning, the underlying truth the speaker is addressing.</b></div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Certainly we should all strive to communicate in ways that make it easier, not more difficult, for people to embrace libertarianism. But this <i>doesn't</i> necessarily mean saying only the things least likely to offend! Very often, it is plainly speaking truth to power that opens the hearts and minds of those who are ready to hear. Passionate advocacy of freedom will do more for the cause than not offending anyone, and we need more young, passionate advocates of freedom like Arvin in our leadership, not fewer. He's right that we should be more straightforward in talking about the libertarian agenda as stated in our platform, and that we should speak more to the victims of the State, who comprise a multitude of small, under-represented groups that together can be a powerful coalition. I sincerely hope this bid to remove him is a gambit in which you start by asking for the more serious step of removal so as to end up being able to pass a motion of censure, but I do not think he deserves censure or removal, and will vote for neither.</div><div><br></div><div>Love & Liberty,</div><div> ((( starchild )))</div><div>At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee</div><div> <a href="mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net" target="_blank">RealReform@earthlink.net</a></div><div> (415) 625-FREE</div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><font class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566text"><i>"If
ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in
peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the
hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."</i> *</font></div><div><font class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566text"><br></font></div><div><font class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566text">*The insulting quote from an August 1776 speech that, in some alternate universe in which the American founders were more concerned with image and marketing, got Samuel Adams ejected from the Continental Congress by his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence after he failed to apologize sufficiently abjectly to the Tories whom he had branded as cowards.</font></div><div><font class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566text"><br></font></div><br><div><div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350h5"><div>On May 18, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Patrick McKnight wrote:</div><br class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="auto"><div><div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350h5">I totally agree with Larry. For me the lack of remorse is astounding. I personally sent Arvin an email about this and received no response. We can't grow by making offensive generalizations and calling people names. This is unacceptable behavior. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks,</div><div dir="auto">Patrick McKnight</div><div dir="auto">Region 8 Rep</div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350h5">On May 18, 2017 10:12 PM, "Larry Sharpe" <<a href="mailto:lsharpe@neo-sage.com" target="_blank">lsharpe@neo-sage.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div><blockquote class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350h5"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p>Dear LNC,</p><p>The idea that we as the LNC should do nothing as a committee regarding Arvin Vohra's comments is alarming to me.</p><p>If
a Board Member or member of the Executive Team at Pepsi ever said
anything negative about Pepsi customers publicly he/she would be
relieved immediately, regardless of whether they were on the clock, off
the clock, on Facebook, in a crowd or announced that is was only their
PERSONAL opinion that "X" group of people are bad. This would happen
even after an apology. If you choose to take on a public role, there
WILL be constraints on your private life. If you don't like that, you
shouldn't take on this role. The LNC is NEVER off. Our words will always
be used to hurt the cause whenever possible. I have been an officer of a
public company and I
was never "off". I could never publicly say disparaging things about
our customers. That's the price I agreed to pay to take that
position. Ours is no different.<br></p><p>What if the comments were about divorced women? Or were race related? Would we just say, "Oh well, that's his personal
opinion? Yeah, I know he's a racist, but you know, what are you gonna
do, right?" I hope not, because no other organization, private, public,
profit or nonprofit would stand for it, and neither should we.</p><p>Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).</p><p>After
multiple lengthy notes explaining why he was right,
he finally provided a weak "I'm sorry that you are so sensitive" apology
hidden in another self-righteous diatribe. There is still no real
apology for the actual insult. Then he went on to insult teachers,
another 3 million voters! Then he went on to call our candidates
tricksters and lairs. Obviously, he doesn't feel like he's done anything
wrong and he has no intention of stopping. <br></p><p>He has poor
judgement, no remorse and a severe lack of empathy. He is making it
harder for us to grow, that's one of our primary goals, and he's not
stopping.</p><p>Because of his actions, it is harder for us to get
volunteers, donations, members and candidates! And the volunteers and
candidates that we have must spend more time doing damage control
instead of being productive with the precious time they give us. <br></p><p>
Everyday the damage continues and the pain festers. And some of you want
to wait until 2018!? No waiting until 2018. We must lead and we must
handle our own. We need to act now.<br></p><p>As soon as we start
consistently winning at the State level and become a threat, our enemies
will comb through our data and use this against us. What story will we
tell?</p><p>"Yes, he called our veterans murderers and we did nothing about."</p><p>They will hear that we agree with him:</p><ul><li>Our veterans are murders</li><li>Our teachers are enemies</li><li>Our candidates are liars and trickster</li></ul><p>It
is what voters will think and that is what matters for a political
party. <span><span>That will come back to haunt and crush us once we have several candidates that are about to win.</span></span></p><p>Or we can say:<br></p><p>"Yes,
he called our veterans murderers and we acted quickly and decisively.
We do NOT agree with that, and that's why we acted." <br></p><p>He has every right to his voice and opinion, just not publicly while he represents the LP.</p><p>This
is not about disagreeing on an issue or platform point. It is about
insulting millions of voters and purposely, actively, continually
hurting our efforts to grow and win which is in direct violation of
article 2 of our bylaws.</p><p>I am a huge proponent of second chances, but he has had many and refuses to adjust his behavior.</p><p>Any
officer in any organization, public or private, profit or non-profit
who created and continues to create this much damage would be removed.
So should he. <br></p><p>Those of you who know me know that I rarely
stand my ground on an LNC issue. I usually say my opinion, respect the
answer, do damage control as needed and then continue my work. Not this
time. For my brothers and sisters who were called immoral murders here,
I will not fall back. <br></p><p>I initially was going to ask for a
motion to officially ask Arvin to apologize, or maybe for a censure. But
that time has passed. Because I am an Alternate, I cannot propose a
motion, so I request for any At-Large LNC member or my Regional Rep,
Patrick McKnight, to propose a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his
position as Vice-Chair under Article 6, section 7 of our Bylaws.<br></p><p> Let him fight for liberty
outside of LP leadership.</p></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566m_4776229456527138003gmail-m_-3057173326603342154m_3467972895583250640gmail-m_2384517870157641190m_-8141029828796735696m_-2829512046939151916m_-287176123662131519gmail-m_931158544463693969gmail-_5pbx m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566m_4776229456527138003gmail-m_-3057173326603342154m_3467972895583250640gmail-m_2384517870157641190m_-8141029828796735696m_-2829512046939151916m_-287176123662131519gmail-m_931158544463693969gmail-userContent" id="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566m_4776229456527138003gmail-m_-3057173326603342154m_3467972895583250640gmail-m_2384517870157641190m_-8141029828796735696m_-2829512046939151916m_-287176123662131519gmail-m_931158544463693969gmail-js_1d"><div><br class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></div></div>-- <br></div></div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350m_8066442576785770566m_4776229456527138003gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828m_-4534506249717944404m_-6912328472942440350h5"><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Larry</span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Larry Sharpe</span></b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p><p><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.</span></b></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><a href="http://theneosage.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">http://TheNeoSage.com/</span></a></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue"></span></a></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">https://www.youtube.com/user/T<wbr>heNeoSage</span></a></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><a title="View public profile" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">http://www.linkedin.com/in/neo<wbr>sage</span></a></span></p><p><u><span style="color:rgb(0,0,204)"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/neosage" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">https://www.facebook.com/neosa<wbr>ge</span></a></span></u></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><b><a href="tel:212-307-3545" value="+12123073545" target="_blank">212-307-3545</a></b></span></p></div></div><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span><image001.png></span> <i>Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring</i></span></div></div></div></div>
</div><span>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><span>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Lnc-business mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br><a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br></span></blockquote></div><br></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-3299482773484181669m_8500322755396407220m_-4508926480840785828gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>In Liberty,</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#666666"><b>Caryn Ann Harlos</b></font></div><div><font size="1">Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee </font><span style="font-size:x-small">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - <a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org" target="_blank">Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Communications Director, <a href="http://www.lpcolorado.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party of Colorado</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Colorado State Coordinator, <a href="http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org" target="_blank">Libertarian Party Radical Caucus</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee</span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small">A haiku to the Statement of Principles:</span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>We defend your rights</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>And oppose the use of force</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><i>Taxation is theft</i></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:x-small"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi<wbr>nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-3299482773484181669gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Arvin Vohra<br><br><a href="http://www.VoteVohra.com" target="_blank">www.VoteVohra.com</a><br><a href="mailto:VoteVohra@gmail.com" target="_blank">VoteVohra@gmail.com</a><br><a href="tel:(301)%20320-3634" value="+13013203634" target="_blank">(301) 320-3634</a></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>