Phillies update: LSLA, Angela Keaton, etc.

From the desk of George Phillies:

I do not believe there is a unique legitimate process in the Bylaws for ejecting an At-large Member from a meeting, and that is a motion that passes to expel the At-Large from the LNC.

Angela, I strongly urge you to write a letter to the Judicial Committee claiming that the ejection was an expulsion, and asking them to rule on the validity of the expulsion. Â This will short circuit any later claim from the guiding geniuses that the expulsion really was an expulsion and, because you did not appeal, you have been expelled. Â Remember what you are dealing with.

I do not believe that the LNC can legitimately vote in executive session.

It does appear to me that the LNC managed to spend 2/3 or more of its only general election campaign meeting in a Presidential election year on this issue.

According to my reports, you were abandoned by the radical faction and defended only by Admiral Colley and the Barr campaign. Â Is this true?

I just lost my elector agreement to substitute Barr for me. Â Goddess knows, it may return, because people were also upset with Steve Gordon, but that is not presently the case.

My State Committee did vote to sever all relations with the LSLA.

My State Convention is going to have a disaffiliation motion, though it may be a motion that the LNC stands disaffiliated from the Libertarian Party.

30 thoughts on “Phillies update: LSLA, Angela Keaton, etc.

  1. G.E. Post author

    George Phillies: Politically wrong but personally heroic.

    Phillies for LP Chair 2010!

  2. Mike Theodore

    I was suggesting he run at the last convention, but it was already crowded with 3 candidates.
    Of course, after his campaign failed, which was inevitable. At least Jingo planned for that.

  3. richardwinger

    Even when the New York state legislature expelled the Socialist Asseblymembers during World War I, and even when Congress expelled Adam Clayton Powell, I’m sure those legislative bodies didn’t force the individuals to leave the chamber while their expulsion was being debated. I don’t really know what happened in this weekend’s LNC meeting, and I can hardly imagine Mary Ruwart or Lee Wrights supporting this (if it’s been accurately portrayed). In the meantime, on a totally different topic, have people seen that long list of books that Sarah Palin wanted censored from the Wasilla public library? Supposedly it can be substantiated because the list is in the minutes of the Wasilla library board.

  4. chuckmoulton

    I do not [sic] believe there is a unique legitimate process in the Bylaws for ejecting an At-large Member from a meeting, and that is a motion that passes to expel the At-Large from the LNC.

    Do you have a citation to the bylaws provision you are referencing?

    Angela, I strongly urge you to write a letter to the Judicial Committee claiming that the ejection was an expulsion, and asking them to rule on the validity of the expulsion. This will short circuit any later claim from the guiding geniuses that the expulsion really was an expulsion and, because you did not appeal, you have been expelled. Remember what you are dealing with.

    She can if she wants, but that seems like a waste of time to me. It was pretty clear the LNC did not vote to suspend Angela. The provisions under article 8.5 of the Bylaws were not followed when Angela was removed from the room or requested to resign; therefore, she was not suspended.

    I do not believe that the LNC can legitimately vote in executive session.

    This is typical Phillies double-speak.

    Of course the LNC can’t legitimately vote in executive session. Here as far as I know the LNC did not vote in executive session. It voted in open session, which I personally witnessed.

    The reader is left by Phillies with the impression that the LNC voted in executive session, but Phillies has the plausible deniability of misleading by saying that his statement that the LNC can’t vote in executive session is completely truthful, with people just happening to draw wrong conclusions.

    This is tantamount to me saying something like “I do not believe that the LNC can legitimately beat Angela senseless with a wacky noodle while in session.” in the middle of an article criticizing the LNC meeting.

    P.S. The LNC did not beat Angela senseless with a wacky noodle.

    It does appear to me that the LNC managed to spend 2/3 or more of its only general election campaign meeting in a Presidential election year on this issue.

    Your clock could use some repair.

    But yes, they did waste a ridiculous amount of time on this. I’d estimate more like 1/4 to 1/3.

    According to my reports, you were abandoned by the radical faction and defended only by Admiral Colley and the Barr campaign. Is this true?

    Things are not nearly as black and white and cliquish as people make them out to be. Votes shifted all over the place because people had different conceptions about what was a waste of time — independent of their conceptions of the appropriate punishment for Angela (if any) and what was the best way of convincing Angela to follow their procedural rules.

    Case in point: Stewart Flood (who Angela sees as a mortal enemy) was adamantly opposed to any further action after the motion asking her to resign. That was probably the straw that broke Aaron Starr’s back causing him to withdraw his more severe motion.

    I just lost my elector agreement to substitute Barr for me.

    My State Committee did vote to sever all relations with the LSLA.

    My State Convention is going to have a disaffiliation motion

    It will be unfortunate to see Massachusetts disrupt party unity in an election year like that.

  5. Thomas M. Sipos

    Paulie: “Just remember that Palin is a ‘libertarian Republican.’ Yeah, right.

    Unfortunately for the LP, Palin may indeed appeal to “Barr/Root conservatives” in the GOP.

    The Reformers had hoped to appeal to conservatives who were upset with McCain. But Palin may now retrieve those conservative voters.

    That sucking sound you heard when Palin gave her speech was Barr/Root conservatives returning home to the GOP.

  6. G.E. Post author

    My dad was going to vote for Bob Barr and is now back on line with McCain because of Palin.

    I think the same is true of my father-in-law.

  7. G.E. Post author

    It will be unfortunate to see Massachusetts disrupt party unity in an election year like that.

    It’s not the LPMASS that’s “disrupting party unity.” It is the LPHQ junta. It is Bob Barr, who stole the nomination with 49.7% of the vote, eschewed unity for a neocon running mate, and then has barely mentioned the word “libertarian” since.

  8. Spence

    And if the Radicals had “stolen” the nomination with 49.7% of the vote and moderates were trying this, there would be no outrage.

  9. paulie cannoli

    That sucking sound you heard when Palin gave her speech was Barr/Root conservatives returning home to the GOP.

    True. I worked a gun show in Bessemer, Alabama the weekend before this past one. Barr was already finished so all I had was Baldwin.

    Many people there were all ga-ga over Palin because she is a life member of the NRA. Never mind that McCain is an F minus from GOA and sponsored legislation that would shut down gun shows.

    As for Palin,

    http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  10. paulie cannoli

    No, I mean really, really afraid.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”

    In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it “God’s will.”

    Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

    “Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

    A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God’s Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

    Palin told graduating students of the church’s School of Ministry, “What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys.” As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she’d work to implement God’s will from the governor’s office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

    “God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said.

    “I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded,” she added. “But really all of that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.”

    Palin attended the evangelical church from the time she was a teenager until 2002, the church said in a statement posted on its Web site. She has continued to attend special conferences and meetings there. Religious conservatives have welcomed her selection as John McCain’s running mate.

    Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lamented Palin’s comments.

    “I miss the days when pastors delivered sermons and politicians delivered political speeches,” he said. “The United States is increasingly diverse religiously. The job of a president is to unify all those different people and bring them together around policy goals, not to act as a kind of national pastor and bring people to God.”

    The section of the church’s Web site where videos of past sermons were posted was shut down Wednesday, and a message was posted saying that the site “was never intended to handle the traffic it has received in the last few days.”

  11. paulie cannoli

    That sucking sound you heard when Palin gave her speech was Barr/Root conservatives returning home to the GOP.

    If the above cited is what a “libertarian republican” is, bon voyage.

  12. pdsa

    >> That sucking sound you heard when Palin gave her speech was Barr/Root conservatives returning home to the GOP.

    > If the above cited is what a “libertarian republican” is, bon voyage.

    This is exactly the outcome one should expect when they allow Viguerie into their midst. Does anybody know if American Target Advertising has billed the LP, and if so, for how much? How about the Barr Campaign?

  13. Jdfamularo

    Angela Keaton has other sources beyond the LP judicial committee for possible redress. The LNC is a corporation under the laws of DC and is also a federal pac under the FEC. I had an attorney look into this in 2001 when the LNC executive committee was threatening me for disclosing/not disclosing the Browne-Willis-Dean scandal.
    I agree with Phillies that documentation and preemptive action is best.

  14. mscrib

    I thought the disaffected conservatives that Barr is trying to win over are more the Ron Paul contingent. Despite what you say about Republicans, you think Palin as VP for McCain is going to sway someone who was backing Ron Paul (a total longshot candidate) in the Republican primaries? Can it really be that many voters?

  15. paulie cannoli

    oes anybody know if American Target Advertising has billed the LP, and if so, for how much? How about the Barr Campaign?

    The FEC knows.

    I thought the disaffected conservatives that Barr is trying to win over are more the Ron Paul contingent.

    No. Maybe some of them, but a lot of those are trending towards either Chuck Baldwin or a Ron Paul write in that in most states will not even be reported as part of the official count. The other Ron Paul supporters – those who supported him primarily over peace and civil liberties issues – are not being appealed to much if at all. They may end up doing the write-in thing, not voting, or voting for Obama, Nader or McKinney.

    With comments like this, are they really trying to appeal to Ron Paul supporters?

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/lp-touts-free-registration-to-conservative-leadership-conference/

    In an email sent to its membership, the Libertarian Party is promoting free registration to the Conservative Leadership Conference to be held September 18-21 in Las Vegas. Saying the overriding question of the conference will be “Should conservatives and libertarians vote for the presidential candidate most ideologically similar to themselves…or for the candidate polling says is most likely to defeat Barack Obama?”, the LP release submits details on the “three third-party conservative candidates” scheduled to speak at the event:

    * Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr – with impeccable conservative credentials while in office representing Georgia – left the GOP and has secured the Libertarian Party nomination. Barr is the LP’s most credible candidate since Ron Paul back in 1988.

    * Conservative talk-show host and columnist Chuck Baldwin, highly regarded by both social conservatives and constitutionalists. Baldwin is the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee this cycle.

    * And former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes – who ran against Barack Obama for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat in 2004 – is now running an independent presidential campaign in a handful of states, as well as appearing on the ballot in California as the presidential nominee of the American Independent Party.

    People who recall “Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr – with impeccable conservative credentials while in office representing Georgia” are not the same set of people as Ron Paul supporters.

    The campaign’s goal was never just to go after only the votes and support of Ron Paul supporters, but those of Republicans too conservative for McCain in general.

    Palin has cut them off at the pass.

  16. paulie cannoli

    People who recall “Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr – with impeccable conservative credentials while in office representing Georgia” are not the same set of people as Ron Paul supporters.

    *fondly recall.

  17. Thomas M. Sipos

    Ron Paul appealed to many antiwar leftists. And to many radical libertarians. Barr/Root do not.

    This may or may not make sense to anyone, but it is so.

    Barr/Root do not appeal to many Ron Paul supporters. And of those who will vote for Barr/Root, many will do without enthusiasm.

    Looks matter. People vote for someone they like and trust. This is Obama’s and Palin’s strong points. Many Americans see them as attractive and charismatic.

    Ron Paul looks genuine, authentic, avuncular, idealistic.

    With that mustache, Barr looks like a villain from a 1970s TV show.

    With those glassy, staring eyes, Root looks like some oily land developer on a 1970s TV show.

    Both Barr and Root look like 1970s TV villains to me. The sort that the Bionic Woman or Barnaby Jones or Charlie’s Angels might find themselves up against.

  18. John P Slevin

    If anyone doubts that the versions of events described by George Phillies and Angela Keaton lack facts/integrity they need only review the statements made here by Moulton.

    There NEVER has been an effective or honest LNC. No sitting body of the LNC EVER has had a majority of honest people on it.

    The LP, historically, is controlled by people like Moulton, absolutely, completely without ANY competence, except in being the one person to stand up and say: “yes, I want to run things”.

    Angela Keaton would do well, for herself, to understand that decent people don’t give a hoot about her current travails.

    Decent people wouldn ‘t willingly associate themselves with the kind of folk who populate the typical LNC meeting.

    The only logical thing for any actual LP supporter to do has been obvious long, long before Angela Keaton stopped stripping and long, long before Angela Keaton began her career as an LNC aspirant.

    It is to strongly oppose the LP, to oppose it’s national structure.

    Keaton was magnificently wrong to try and join it. So was Phillies.

    I see hope because from his comments above, I think some of the people in MA might now understand that the hope for the LP lies in opposing the nitwits at National.

    Anyone doubting this ought to ask himself/herself why it is that basically, there is no problem for any idiot getting elected to high office within the LP structure.

    Hell, usually you NEVER are opposed. No one runs, so IF, like Ms. Keaton, who put your hat in the ring, you win!

    Why, why do obviously intelligent people like Ms. Keaton think they are winning anything of value?

    The answer to that lies with those people who value themselves by the titles they hold.

    None of that has anything to do with holding actual libertarian values.

  19. John P Slevin

    and if you doubt any of the above, ask yourself why is it that the people who run the LP are the people who take the “posts” which are created by the State.

    State election laws (and some national laws, arguably) require a certain, somewhat specific structure for a political party.

    There is NO logical reason for, say, a county central committee. There obviously, painfully obviously, is absolutely NO reason for anything like the LNC. Except, of yes, the State requires it.

    Why is it that so many, many Libertarians keep giving their time and efforts to the very structure we oppose?

    Supporting ANYTHING proposed by the LNC is to support the State. It should be obvious.

    Then, again, some people really get off on their titles.

  20. Thomas M. Sipos

    Here in California, if you’re a party member, you’re a member of the state-created “central committee.”

    You’re wrong about “anyone can win” a spot on the LNC. Every time I went to a convention, more people ran than won.

    Angela is doing good work on the LNC. I hope she won’t get discouraged.

    I don’t see why she should care if she’s censured. Does it come with any penalties or loss of power?

    If not, she should just say, “Sure, great. I accept your censure. Censure me every day, if you like. But now, getting back to business…”

  21. Steve LaBianca

    mscrib // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:19 am

    I thought the disaffected conservatives that Barr is trying to win over are more the Ron Paul contingent.

    First of all, as previously stated by me and others, Barr is a very poor substitute for Ron Paul.

    Secondly, Paul’s appeal is with people from all over the political spectrum, including leftists, anti-war activists, libertarians and conservatives, among other “groups”.

    Barr’s appeal is vastly geared toward disaffected conservative Republicans.

  22. John P Slevin

    Thomas A Sippos. You are absolutely and totally wrong. Here in California, where I reside, it is NOT like you say.

    The county central committees are a requirement of the state election laws.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    Moreover, being a party member has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with being a central committee member.

    “central committee” as defined in the law. The LP’s bylaws ARE NOT the law.

    The central committee structure of the LP of California was/is determined by the ballot access history of the Peace and Freedom Party.

    I know, I was here then, active in the LP then.

    Also, I served on Central Committee (joke) time.

    ONLY an idiot sees value in committees.

    No self-respecting libertarian ever could.

  23. John P Slevin

    and to be more explicit, Angela Keaton’s ONLY involvement as an LP “activist” has revolved around her somewhat self-centered view of herself as important.

    I cannot give one damn bit of care to someone who never has formed ANY group, ANYWHERE, to do ANYTHING, and who asks me to give a crap about what the LNC does to her.

    Now, that being said, I think she probably is a pretty good person. I like the tone of her comments.

    It needs to be stated. She’s accomplished absolutely NOTHING as an LP “activist”.

    She HAS sought grand title. That makes me think of her as not much different than Redpath.

  24. Thomas M. Sipos

    John, I’m not sure I understand your points.

    First, I made it clear that central committees are “state-created.”

    Second, you join the party, you become a central committee member. That’s how it currently is.

    Los Angeles County LP chair Bruce Dovner is planning to write a page for the L.A. County LP website, telling people how they can become central committee members by joining the party.

  25. John P Slevin

    Ok Thomas, I think I can answer.

    First, the LP of California qualified for the ballot using the Peace and Freedom Party “model”. That is, the two majors didn’t want a new party then anymore than they do today. The Peace and Freedom Party had become a party in California in 1968.

    When the LP qualified it was by the 1978 gubernatorial election (Ed Clark, future LP presidential nominee) ran and got enough votes to “qualify” the LP as a party under California law. However, the then Calif. Secty of State refused to recognize the LP as a party.

    Essentially, the LP either could sue the state of California (expensive and dubious) or it could “qualify” in another way…and that was to get X number of voter registrants who would write Libertarian onto the space on voter registration cards, rather than enlist under one of the other parties.

    The LP succeeded in that effort and so adopted rules similar to what the State had required of the Peace and Freedom Party and which were (and are) part of the election code. County central committees are one feature of party requirements under the election code.

    I’m sure you won’t have any trouble understanding that some of us don’t see any real purpose for county central committees, since they exist solely as creatures of the state (or, can you name me one time one of them, in California, as proven to be indispensable to the cause of liberty?)

    In California, the LP cannot stop someone from being on a central committee if that person runs for the office by putting their name on the primary ballot and if they get votes in their county (California party bylaws at one time allowed anyone in California to switch “residence” to any other county in the state, for purposes of LP needs…this was done by the California LP so as to provide a protection against someone like Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke invading the LP at the county central committee level (much in the way those two, and others, essentially have conducted raids on the 2 major parties, by jamming their central committees).

    Ask yourself “why” does one need a central committee at the county level. There is NO reason. Just as there is no reason for an LNC, except that each is required by law.

    Going, logically, beyond that you should ask yourself why a party is necessary for political action. Again, you’ll find that logically there is no reason, except, of course, for practical reasons which exist ONLY because of laws which forbid and/or restrict political activivities which do not conform to the election code (an example is campaign finance law, which typically has allowed parties to accept larger campaign contributions than candidates, and to redistribute some of that loot to individual candidates).

    Parties, which are creatures of the State, and central committees (“subcreatures”, if you will) serve no legitimate, logical function.

  26. Thomas M. Sipos

    I don’t know what point you think you’re trying to make. I wasn’t advocating central committees, I merely pointed out that every member of the California LP is a central committee member.

    Those are the rules we’ve adopted. If you join the LPC, you’re automatically a central committee member.

  27. John P Slevin

    That is incorrect. Central committees are not created or overseen by the LP of California. They weren’t invented there. They were invented by election law, and the LP of California bylaws concerning them are are in reaction to the existing law.

    It really is beside the point. I ask you to name one Central Committee in the history of the LP of California which ever did a damn thing right. Just name one.

  28. John P Slevin

    To make it more clear, I hope, California election law governs the county central committees, NOT LP bylaws, rules and other extraneous bs.

  29. Thomas M. Sipos

    You’re arguing with yourself.

    “Central committees are not created or overseen by the LP of California. They weren’t invented there. They were invented by election law, and the LP of California bylaws concerning them are are in reaction to the existing law.”

    I never said otherwise. I’d already said, at least twice, that central committee are state-created.

    “I ask you to name one Central Committee in the history of the LP of California which ever did a damn thing right. Just name one.”

    When did I ever claim that they’d done anything “right?” When?

    You’re not paying attention to anything I’m saying. You’re blood pressure is so high, you’re screaming with yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *