George Phillies: ‘Our good ship Liberty needs to change course’

Originally posted at http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=3716 by George Phillies:

Change can be time-consuming. Change can be demanding. Change can be frightening.

Sometimes, change can be necessary.

I’ll start with the simplest of graphs. (Click on images to enlarge.) The graph below shows LNC income for the years 2000-2009. The value of the dollar changes in time. All dollar amounts are in 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation.

If you find that graph familiar, it’s because LNC National Treasurer candidate James Oaksun just put up a similar one. You can read about his proposals, notably Zero Base Budgeting, at http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=3694

For the last decade, LNC income has been falling at 15% a year in real terms. That’s 12% a year without adjusting for inflation. Over the decade, real LNC income has fallen by nearly three-fourths. No wonder there is less and less money available for candidate and volunteer support.

Our members are as generous as always. The next graph shows LNC income in inflation-adjusted dollars (black circles) and our dues-paying membership (red line). The figures scales are on the left and the right. The two curves are very close. When membership goes up, so does party income. When membership goes down, so does party income. In Presidential election years, members are unusually generous, leading to the upward bumps in the curve.

In constant dollars, our 2009 income was lower than our 1993 income. Our membership is not much better.

So where are we going? Every investor in the country has heard the refrain: Past results are no guarantee of future performance. However, every successful investor has noticed successful firms that keep on being successful, not to mention vast numbers of badly-run companies that refuse to change until they die.

So what is the LNC’s present course? You can see that in the following graph. I show LNC Income from 1996 to the present. The bright red straight line is the best fit to the historical record. Yes, we could change course.

However, if we do not change our course, by 2016 or so our National Party will be out of business.

We need new policies, new leadership and new approaches to building our Party.

We need to focus on the future. We need to choose the directions in which we want to move. We need to choose the right people to help us move in those directions.

That’s why fine Libertarians from around the country are preparing to run for our National Committee this year. Some have declared. Others are likely to declare, especially if you cheer them on. They need cheering. They all represent a positive commitment for change in our Party, and merit your support.

Libertarians? I am talking about people including (in alphabetical order): Rachel Hawkridge, Joe Kennedy, Vicki Kirkland, Carolyn Marbry, David Nolan, James Oaksun, Jake Porter, Rob Power, James Remmert, Mary Ruwart, Charles Wilhoit, Scott Williamson, and Lee Wrights.

That’s not a complete list. It’s a good start.

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.

216 thoughts on “George Phillies: ‘Our good ship Liberty needs to change course’

  1. Don Lake .......... More Hyperbole

    [a] may be I have found the stupidest chiropractor on the planet in California (Donald J. Grundmann, DC) ………..

    [b] may be I have found the dumbest MD (Ron Paul)

    [c] and PhD [un] wise there is George Phillies *

    * You do realize that the Israeli armed forces fired upon the non combatant USS Liberty killing and wounding dozens of sailors. Our nation thot enug of the skipper to award him the Medal of Honor. A terminal degree brainiac like you could not have given the head line for the article some thing like “George Phillies: ‘Our good ship LIBERTARIAN needs to change course’.

    You are held in such low regard ………..

  2. Michael Seebeck

    Uh, Don, he was speaking in hyperbole, not literal, and…ah, skip it. You missed the point entirely and it’s long gone…

  3. Shane

    I’m sincerely impressed. George wrote something that was both honest and correct.

    What he doesn’t explain is that each change on those graphs can be associated with an LNC action.

    The high point of the chart was due to Steve Dasbach’s outstanding job of prospecting. Things were going great until the LNC decided to kick his legs out from underneath him and prohibit a temporary deficit — killing the ability to drop large mailings.

    Without prospecting, the decline continued until 2004 when Joe Seehusen started small-batch prospecting to registered libertarians and other “l-friendly” lists.

    Notice the little up-tick on the membership chart.

    Unfortunately, Joe upset a CA faction and then Neale’s Raiser’s Edge was used to drive him over the edge.

    That’s were I come in — $200k in past due bills and a bank account that’s $20k overdrawn from uncashed payments to states — an improvement of what Joe faced when he started.

    Without much consideration to our financial situation, the LNC passed “zero dues” in October of 2005 without requesting a financial impact statement from their own staff — it was about 38% of revenue if I recall correctly.

    Additionally, while dues were immediately cut, UMP payments were phased out over a period of a year. That was about $25k per month as we started the phase out.

    Notice the significant drop on the membership chart after the zero-dues resolution took effect.

    Thankfully, the delegates of the 2006 convention overturned the LNC’s “zeo-dues” policy and we were able to start small-batch prospecting and heavy reacquisition again that same year leading to the 27% increase in membership in 2007 and the gains in 2008. Those membership increases are now pretty much gone due to a lack of acquisition efforts.

    I agree that we need a new direction but I’m not sure that loading up the LNC with folks who use that “change” as their main stump speech will do the trick.

    The LNC needs folks who first understand non-profits, marketing, and membership organizations. Secondly, they must understand their role as a board member.

    Currently and for far too long, the LNC has been loaded with people who make impactful decisions without the foggiest idea of what they are doing. Worse, they are easily deceived by cunning folks who seem to know what they are talking about.

    The LNC that I’ve witnessed over the past several years is one that acts like it’s a bit more important than it really is and as a result has to continually pass new rules and policies to keep up with that image. It’s comparable to a small government whose elected officials need a list of accomplishments under their belt to get re-elected.

    In the end, the LNC has done far more harm then good in my opinion. That’s not to say that board members are not well-meaning . . . they are, they just don’t know how to address declining membership and fundraising.

    During that 2006 convention, a few folks were sticking to the hotel walls bumper stickers that read “Abolish the LNC.” At the time, I didn’t get it. I do now.

    The LNC either needs to be tightly controlled with its own transparent version of Read the Bills Act, or perhaps, those bumper stickers were right and the state chairs should be the national party’s governing body when not in convention.

    Either way, the LP must resume conventional acquisition methods to start growing again and the folks on the LNC need to sit back and watch the process work for once.

    Just my $.02

  4. tab

    I think I finally agree with something that Phillies wrote.

    Sometimes a change is needed. Personal feeling (good or bad) about people on the LNC are irrelevant as the graph shows that something needs to happen. The party is not capitalizing on the large amount of new interest.

  5. Starchild

    One way in which I believe the Libertarian Party needs to change course is by no longer spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to rent office space in the Watergate building.

    I’m open on the question of whether the party’s national office should be in Washington D.C. at all, or somewhere else. If the LP’s national office were to be moved out of D.C., the Free State Project state of New Hampshire would seem like a logical choice.

    Some have argued that the LP would be better off not spending money on a national office at all, and if the question were between that and having the kind of office we have now, I might agree.

    Done right however, I believe having an office could be a real asset and activist resource for the Libertarian Party, and well worth the (considerably less) money spent on it.

    Here are some qualities I believe we should look for our national office to provide:

    • a meeting space and base of operations for the local party chapter in its area

    • a high-visibility location where it can display messages and materials that will be seen by passers-by

    • a kind of libertarian community center where pro-freedom activists and groups both in and outside the LP can hold meetings, socialize, etc.

    • a bold, non-corporate appearance including lots of space for people to post their own materials (i.e. an “organic” feel or sense of
    being a place with a soul)

    • a minimal drain on party coffers (i.e. cheap rent)

    • a central location in a walkable neighborhood with lots of foot traffic, easily accessible by mass transit

    • an environment geared toward matching interns and volunteers with tasks on a rapid, informal basis

    • a friendly, welcoming place for out of town Libertarians to drop in and visit, sit down and have a cup of coffee, read some back issues
    of LP News, etc. (perhaps do some volunteering, pick up some free literature for distribution, just have a look around, etc.)

    • temporary storage space for protest signs, activist materials, etc. (especially if in D.C. where there are frequent opportunities to take part in demonstrations and other national events)

    • 24-hour accessibility to activists

    • an on-site retail store where people can buy pro-freedom supplies (LPStuff.com type items)

    • posted office hours during which LP members can drop in (or call ahead to make reservations) to talk to specific staffers about their questions or concerns

    • a space seen as belonging to the whole party and to some degree the whole movement, that doesn’t feel like the private domain of paid staffers

    Clearly the Libertarian Party is not getting this much utility out of its office right now. And this is a shame, because having a national LP office offers a major opportunity to build community and solidarity both in the party and in the larger freedom movement, to bring in members of the public, to increase merchandise sales, and to create a stronger sense of ownership among party members.

  6. George Whitfield

    I think that George Phillies and Shane Cory’s observations show that the LP has made a series of strategic errors. I hope that the new National Committee will hear their analyses and make the needed corrections.

  7. Thomas M. Sipos

    Does anyone have any stats on the medium age of LP members?

    I ask, because I wonder if this membership drop is due to a “graying of the LP”?

    Is the LP attracting enough youth to replenish the older members who are dying off?

    Ron Paul appealed to youth. Barr/Root did not.

  8. Robert Milnes

    Ron Paul bamboozled youth. Barr/Root couldn’t. Sipos, still worshipping that counterrevolutionary chameleon? After all the expose by George, Tom & me? Moron.

  9. Robert Capozzi

    Starchild, actually, if the LPHQ were to be moved from DC, Houston would be the best choice. It would further validate the LP’s repetition compulsion. (During the Rothbard/Bergland Purge of the 80s, they moved HQ to Houston.)

  10. Robert Capozzi

    Shane, there is a kind of bizarre dynamic among Ls that I wish I could understand better. For ex., there is the Pennywise/Poundfoolish penchant, where some Ls fixate on small line items in the budget while missing the big-picture that you need to spend money to make money (or, in this case, prospect for members).

    And yet while standard business practices are rejected, there’s the confusion between a business and a non-profit.

    Perhaps most dysfunctionally, there’s the moral mountain out of molehill, where anyone who disagrees with someone becomes an “evil cretin.”

    Maybe we do need a Rodney King Caucus after all! 😉

  11. Gene Trosper

    Matthew Barnes is why I decided to sever ties with the LP recently. I encourage all good Libertarians in California to boycott the upcoming state convention, stop donating to the LPC, change their registrations to “Decline To State” and resign their memberships. Zander Collier did the right thing.

  12. Robert Milnes

    Sipos, I’ll need some time to figure out what is counterrevolutionary about what he said there in YouTube on your website. I’m confident I can figure out the skinny little shit. Meanwhile you continue to spread his crap despite what George & Tom & I have said about him.

  13. Bruce Cohen

    I used to be disgusted.

    But now I’m just amused.

    (You Know the Angels Wanna Wear My Red Shoes)

    Let’s be careful here about what’s going on at the LPCA and their JC.

    No official statement has come out and a lot of the facts regarding both Matthew and my suspension and expulstion proceedings have been misstated, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident.

    I have very little faith in the ‘leadership’ in California to do the right or honest thing.

    On the other hand, I want to give them the opportunity to do the right thing, as well as the time to release the true and correct version of the proceedings.

    At this point, only the LPCA Board and Judicial Committee know what actually happened at the hearing yesterday.

    Let’s not speculate publicly too much, and give them a chance as a group of 20 people, to finally do the right thing.

  14. paulie Post author

    Is the LP attracting enough youth to replenish the older members who are dying off?

    Not nearly. We need to make that a central focus of the party, and I am willing to help. I’d like to talk to anyone who agrees and is willing to help in any way – board member, fundraiser/publicist, field work, or treasurer.

  15. Shane

    Regarding youth, in comparison to other ideological non-profits, our median age is much younger. It’s common for many groups to have most supporters in the 60 to 70 range. Our supporters span the trailing end of the Baby Boomers, the Boomers and Gen X’ers. It’s actually ideal for a direct mail responsive list. We also have double the number of wealthy and affluent donors than other lists.

    For fundraising, we have a great demographic, but for activism, not so much as we are attracting few college-aged supporters. I don’t think that will be changing anytime soon as we’re being out-hussled on every campus in the nation and even bought out on some (LI has attempted to “purchase” some of our campus groups in the past).

    So I don’t think our donor base is dying out anytime soon. We’re not attracting youth but we’re pretty much not attracting any demographic. Once we figure out how to effectively market the party to a general segment, then we can dedicate more time to specific groups. The opposite hasn’t worked out too well for us.

  16. Richard P. Burke

    Dear All,

    Contributions have surely dropped, but we need to be careful when inferring cause and effect.

    Mr. Phillies fails to note that the drop in contributions leaves two things out: 1) The 9/11 attack, after which contributions to many organizations took a dramatic drop and, 2) The recession, after which contributions to almost every organization took a dramatic drop.

    In all kinds of politics across all political divides, people who have succeeded in their careers (read: Those with disposable income to donate) are results driven. In politics, results means electoral victory or, at least, DEMONSTRABLE and QUANTIFIABLE political relevance. When we produce results, money follows. When we don’t, money does not come our way. This could imply a catch 22, but it isn’t: Even with limited resources, we can (and have) produced results by acting with Political Intelligence.

    If we want to attract more time, talent, and money to the LP, we need to win more. Where we cannot win ourselves, we need to determine who wins to put us in the realm of political relevancy and win seats at the table of public discourse.

    After we do this, the money will come because we will be able to convince people of means that their investments in the LP will net results.

    We just have to decide that we are a political party rather than a church.

    Richard P. Burke

  17. paulie Post author

    great demographic, but for activism, not so much

    Yes, I consider that a serious problem.

    I don’t think that will be changing anytime soon as we’re being out-hussled on every campus

    So let’s change that.

    If anyone agrees with me that this is critical and would like to help take concrete steps to make those changes, I would love to hear from you.

    I need:

    One treasurer. Someone stable who can open and manage a bank account and provide periodic reports. There probably won’t be a lot of contributions coming in for a while, so it won’t be highly time consuming.

    Unspecified numbers of:

    board members (people whose names would make the organization more credible). Also not a time commitment unless you want it to be.

    Fund/awareness raisers: this will require some time commitment, but how much is up to you.

    Field volunteers: same as fund/awareness raisers.

    Additionally, I and at least one or two other petition contractors are willing to volunteer to gather contacts and start and strengthen existing college groups during the course of our work at no extra pay; it would be much more effective, though, if we had an organization to work with.

  18. paulie Post author

    1) The 9/11 attack, after which contributions to many organizations took a dramatic drop

    The ACLU grew, if I recall correctly. They stood up against the violations of civil liberties in the name of the “war on terror,” something we should have made a central focus at the time. Antiwar groups, migrants rights groups, and marijuana/hemp legalization groups also grew in the last decade, and I believe we should have made our presence known in these movements. But as Shane pointed out, we don’t have a good demographic for activism, and our recruiting – to the underwhelming extent it has taken place at all – has been aimed foursquare at the right.


    and, 2) The recession, after which contributions to almost every organization took a dramatic drop.

    Not every organization. There are exceptions which we should analyze and learn from.

  19. Shane

    Paulie, go for it. It’s always been your passion.

    Richard, you have a point on uncontrollable events but typically, that only affects the piece currently in the mail (which could be devastating if it’s a large mailing – the LP doesn’t have that problem) and now, email solicitations. Whether 9/11, the tsunami, Haiti, gas prices or the recession, there’s still enough to go around. The charts above were not moved by those events. Were donations down for a few weeks? Sure, but when you honestly explain that to donors, they give. Libertarians are generous.

    Our biggest negative factor has been our board so we can’t put the blame on much else.

    As for success, yes that’s great and is normally correct but has less of an impact for our efforts. LP supporters want the big picture and will donate to us to support that vision which may never come about — they accept that.

    At the national level, they don’t care about what we’ve done, they care about what we want to do. At the local level, results have greater weight.

  20. If the LP party doesn't clean up

    If the libertarian don’t do what it needs to do and clean up its act it will lose support. Because it would have been proven to be no better than the corrupt government.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    LibertarianGirl,

    Mark Hinkle is the chair of the LPCA’s Judicial Committee, which by definition makes him “instrumental” in any of its rulings …

    … but do you have information suggesting that he favored the ruling or, if so, why?

    For that matter, do you have information which would demonstrate that the ruling was not the correct ruling? In theory, at least, a judicial committee is bound by rules, even if those rules conflict with their personal preferences.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    I didn’t ask what the particular information you might have is or where it came from.

    I just wanted to ascertain whether or not you had information to inform your conclusion. If you say you do, I believe you (which is not the same thing as agreeing with you — I myself do not have information of the type specified).

  23. LibertarianGirl

    Tom , the ruling isnt correct because they already voted to remove him , they we’re following bylaws when they did so and THE DUDE IS A PREDATOR CHILD MOLESTER… DUH!

  24. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 26 paulie you are correct and as I recall the increase in the ACLU numbers were significant.

    Being ahead of the curve on some of these issues would be a big change. It ain’t difficult. we just gotta just read the papers and think.

  25. T. R. Ubble

    Deb, I don’t know the facts in this case in detail. But I’m wondering if you can clarify your position for me a little.

    1. Is it your view that anyone convicted of a violent felony should be denied the opportunity to be a party officer? A party member?

    2. If yes, does this apply however much time has passed since the violent act occurred? And is this because you think denial of party membership should serve as punishment for the offense, because past conviction of a violent felony is good evidence that someone will be violent again, or simply because the convict’s membership or office-holding would be a PR disaster?

    3. If you don’t take this position generally, why take it here? Do you have evidence (which you don’t need to spell out here) that Mr. Barnes is likely to commit further violent acts apart from those that led to his conviction? If he poses a continuing threat, that’s very, very relevant, but it seems that it ought to be documented.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    You write:

    “the ruling isnt correct because they already voted to remove him”

    I think you’re confused as to the role of the judicial committee.

    The role of the judicial committee is to determine whether, in the vote to remove (actually, suspend) him the executive committee did or did not in fact adhere to the bylaws.

    The fact that you like the decision the executive committee reached is not evidence that that decision was bylaws-compliant.

    The fact that the judicial committee’s ruling pisses you off is not evidence that that ruling is incorrect.

    Like Walter Sobchak said, “this isn’t Nam, this bowling. There are rules.” He didn’t like pedophiles either, but he pulled his gun on Smoky, not on the Jesus.

  27. Brian Holtz

    The only rule here is that a Party member may be suspended (i.e. expelled) “for cause”. I too would like to hear Debra’s answers to Mr. Ubble about what should constitute cause for expulsion.

  28. Saint+Sinner

    @ 17

    Gene,
    I have one question for you… what have you done to further the “Freedom Movement”?
    As far as I can tell you are a goth kid that never grew up. Your level of enthusiasm is nice, but the way you have done things has killed your county party. Your “Leadership” skills have given you a county that can not even fill its operations committee. You have not produced anything, and I am good with you leaving.

    I will give you some advice that I learned when I was in the Navy “If you are going to lay your D**k on the table… make sure it’s impressive”

    @ 20

    Bruce,

    Wow… You? Telling folks to wait and see… you are not screaming at the rooftops with this? Huh, I don’t think I have ever seen you use that melon head of yours for good before… I am worried.

    But I do think you are right: we should wait and see what happens. It is so amusing to me that the noose around your neck was removed by a guy, who would not even receive a handshake from you. I look froward to your continued effort with the LP, I think you could do some good… as long as you turn your focus outside our own rank and file.

    @ 34

    You have been steered wrong in this situation… You may want to check your “private source”. For purity and true understanding. You don’t know what you are talking about. You were not privy to the meeting, or its content. Nor will you ever.
    I think that it’s time that you learned to keep your mouth shut because you are an embarrassment. The fact that you can still hold your head high is impressive considering you have no spine. You have/are doing nothing for the “Freedom Movement”.
    Your constant bad mouthing and unwelcome opinions, are sure to be your down fall…
    Don’t make me call Zander to get you to shut up.

  29. Thomas L. Knapp

    Just to be clear here — and because I was dropping back by to post a couple of videos from The Greatest Story Ever Told — I have no opinion on whether or not the Judicial Committee’s ruling was correct. I just understand that whether or not it was correct has nothing to do with LG’s (or my) like or dislike for the outcome it produces.


    Lebowski Jesus

    The Time Consumer | MySpace Video

  30. LibertarianGirl

    1. Is it your view that anyone convicted of a violent felony should be denied the opportunity to be a party officer? A party member?

    it depends on the felony of course.

    2. If yes, does this apply however much time has passed since the violent act occurred?

    depends

    And is this because you think denial of party membership should serve as punishment for the offense, because past conviction of a violent felony is good evidence that someone will be violent again,
    yes
    or simply because the convict’s membership or office-holding would be a PR disaster?

    DEAR G*D YES

    3. If you don’t take this position generally, why take it here? Do you have evidence (which you don’t need to spell out here) that Mr. Barnes is likely to commit further violent acts apart from those that led to his conviction?
    THERE IS NO REFORMING BEING A PEDOPHILE WHICH HE ADMITS TO BEING . YOU DONT SUDDENLY CHANGE WHAT GETS YOU OFF , YOU MAY BE ABLE TO CONTROL IT FOR SOMETIME , MAYBE FOREVER , BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS AND I WOULDNT LET HIM AROUND MY KIDS

    If he poses a continuing threat, that’s very, very relevant, but it seems that it ought to be documented.

    me_ the biggest problem is he never disclosed his past and never gave people whose homes he entered the opportunity to decide whther or not to take that risk . that is force, he should be expelled.

  31. Bruce Cohen

    For the record, I consider Debra my friend. Also for the record, I am not her ‘source’.

    I know not about the JC’s decision regarding Matthew, except for the vote count.

    Matthew explicity admitted to the court he could not control his impulses, was not curable and as well, Matthew, as far as anyone knows, has not sought treatment or help for this.

    As my Police and Attorney friends tell me, Matthew as a responsibility he contractually agreed to as part of his plea bargain as a Sex Offender to follow certain standards.

    The way I read the law, he did not notify people who he should have. As well, I read the law to preclude him from activism in the LP where he would be unattended around minors.

    My Attorney and Cop friends agree.

    Some smart Libertarians have read the same law and disagree.

    Whatever.

    Mister Barnes has a long track record of dishonesty and bad behavior.

    The current Chairman was exposed to that when he tried to sabotage certain parts of the LAX Sheraton LPCA Annual Convention a few years back, as well as my personal Campaign for Southern Vice Chair.

    It’s not exactly rocket science figuring out quickly that there is something very wrong with Mister Barnes.

    My ‘Stay Away!’ meter went red after just a few minutes around him and I have been less than secretive about this for many years.

    No Kiwanis Club would keep a liar on their Board.

    This guy lied and cheated, as well as lying and cheating about being a Pedophile Child Molester.

    Lay off Libertarian Girl and get some manners.
    Zander could NEVER have shut her up.
    She has a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to speak her darn mind, not to mention the TRUTH.

    And now that Zander has resigned, that’s sort of a moot question, isn’t it?

    I suggest nobody poke this hornets nest more, or I and other hornets will come out stinging again.

    I thank you to be respectful of a very nice, hardworking and kind person, Debra the Libertarian Girl.

    If you need someone to pick on, pick on someone your own size.

    ME.

    Besides, I’m used to it.
    Everything is my fault in the LP.

    Especially what’s happening in California.

    After all, that’s what [CVCVC] said when it first came out, you know…

  32. LibertarianGirl

    S+S_ @ 34

    You have been steered wrong in this situation… You may want to check your “private source”.

    me_ i trust my source and the reinstated him , nuff said

    For purity and true understanding. You don’t know what you are talking about. You were not privy to the meeting, or its content. Nor will you ever.

    me_ thank goodness , i would never want to have to deal with that.

    I think that it’s time that you learned to keep your mouth shut

    me_ this is blog silly , people talk here

    because you are an embarrassment. The fact that you can still hold your head high is impressive considering you have no spine.

    me__ how did u know I had scoliosis as a kid and have a metal rod in my back , you must be psychic

    You have/are doing nothing for the “Freedom Movement”.

    me_I have worked ALOT in NV altho barely at all this past year , i think i have burn-out

    Your constant bad mouthing and unwelcome opinions, are sure to be your down fall…
    Don’t make me call Zander to get you to shut up.

    me__ROFLMAO

  33. Gene Trosper

    @43 You make me laugh. Killed the county party? Let’s review: I walked away from the LP a few years ago due to a combination of issues. Some related to internal party issues and others simply due to heavy duty, hard core burn out. I was talked back into joining the LP because of my past track record. I organized successful campaigns against tax increases on numerous occasions and one of these campaigns resulted in the ABOLITION of a local government entity. How many Libertarians can claim they actually had a hand in that? Not many I dare say. I also was campaign manager for the Bill Reed for congress campaign in 2000 and he garnered 15% of the vote that year. Want more? I also organized a large rally to protest the Border Patrol Checkpoint in Temecula, CA. It recieved wide media coverage, even garnering a TV interview with the San Diego NBC affiliate. want more? In 1991, I organized the first ever cannabis rally in Lake Elsinore CA and was even threatened with jail time for having the rally.

    last year, I became chairman of the Riverside County LP and even though I wasn’t as active as I could have been (I had been working ovetime a lot and live a substantial distance from Riverside proper), I managed to do more in 2009 than what the county party had seen in a few years.

    As for my personal life, I work full time for a large multi-national company and have help my position for 12 years. I have a wife and daughter and own my own home. How I live my life is my business and I’m certainly not living my life to satisfy you or anyone else. I make no apologies for who I am or what I do. My suggestion to you before opening your ignorant mouth is this: FUCK OFF.

  34. Bruce Cohen

    Gene and I have had political differences in the past. However, they have always been about policy, never about integrity.

    Gene is not a liar and should not be treated this way by some anonymous mouth.

  35. LibertarianGirl

    and i also have a long list of actual work and accolades ive accomplished- from anti drug war vigils to running for office — but i too tired to list them now. going to take a nappy

  36. LPCA Phrenologist

    If you as a 19-year-old troubled alcoholic fondled a young teenager, then by definition you as a 41-year-old with a subsequently clean record are nevertheless a permanent threat to all children and must be jailed for life for the good of society. If you ever shoplifted, you’re a lifelong klepto. If you ever played with fire, you’re a lifelong pyro. If you ever went streaking, you’re a lifelong exhibitionist. If you ever looked in a neighbor’s window, you’re a lifelong voyeur. None of these conditions can be reformed or controlled. Your mere existence is a threat to society. Your non-disclosure to anyone of anything that might disturb anyone is an act of force initiation. Until the LP can institute a truly Libertarian government that can legislate all these rules, the least we can do as a Party is to enforce them on our membership.

  37. Bruce Cohen

    The Phrenologists logic doesn’t work.

    There is a difference in the recidivism rate of these crimes.

    Mister Barnes is considered by the Court as a high risk to reoffend.

    Also by the Prosecution….

    The Defense agreed…

    So did Matthew’s Shrink.

    Even Matthew said he was unreformed, unrepentant and unable to control himself.

    Be that as it may, he lied about his offense to the LPCA Board, among a whole track record of lying.

    He was around people’s young children without notifying them.

    There is no workaround for Matthew.
    There is every reason to suspend/expel him for cause and it’s a failure of the LPCA Board to properly Prosecute him and/or of the LPCA Judicial Committee.

    I don’t know who or why or what happened, as I am not privy to the reasoning behind the vote.

    However, if it were 5-0, then one might come to the conclusion that the LPCA Prosecution blew it for one reason or another and the JC just did what they had to do.

    This is not about ‘Matthew fondling another teenager’.

    Matthew was in a position of influence as a Scoutmaster, supervising and protecting groups of young boys under the age of 13.

    Of whom he molested serially over a six month period.

    Get real. Three little boys that he pled guilty to, and some feel there were a lot more he didn’t get pegged with.

    And that wasn’t the first time.

    Phrenologist, go debunk yourself.

  38. LPCA Fact-Checker

    The California Code says: 290.95. (a) Every person required to register under Section 290,
    who applies for or accepts a position as an employee or volunteer with any person, group, or organization where the registrant would be
    working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children, shall disclose his or her status as a registrant, upon application or acceptance of a position, to that person, group, or organization.

    It’s illiterate to suggest that as an LPCA officer, Barnes “work[ed] directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or ha[d] supervision or disciplinary power over minor children”.

  39. Bruce Cohen

    I saw him at a San Bernardino Libertarian Party meeting in a situation where he seemed to be supervising children and in fact seemed to be their driver.

    I assume Mister Barnes, activist extraordinare that some claim he was, went to events, such as the Junior Statesmen of America events.

    I remember seeing him at some College events when I was helping Judge Gray run for Senate, I believe.

    I think it’s pretty clear his Parole Officer might disagree with the Fact Checker, especially since folks I know who are in that business say they do.

    Maybe the fact checker could Call Barnes’ Parole Officer and ask him.

    That would settle it, now wouldn’t it?

  40. Carolyn Marbry

    Bear in mind that you are speaking with Barnes at points in this thread.

    Bruce, you used that word unrepentant again, and I will say again as I did last time, you have no grounds for that assertion. You are not inside his head, so that’s not something you can say with any certainty. That he didn’t make his past public is understandable. A man should not be known for all time by the worst thing (or in this case one of the worst things) he’s ever done, and there is room for forgiveness. That he should not be allowed around teenagers or children is a given, but it’s something he’s not taken pains to see to himself. After all, he was pulling the strings behind the LP Youth Caucus.

    The reason he was being suspended and apparently the reason the JC didn’t really grasp was not that he was a pedophile. That was old news. That was 20 years ago and more, and he did his time for it. There is NO EVIDENCE (repeat, Bruce, NO EVIDENCE) that he has reoffended sexually.

    Granted, I have as much disgust for pedophiles as anyone, don’t get me wrong, and I do not defend him nor would I choose to spend any time in his company, but that wasn’t so much the issue for the party as the fact that he lied to the excomm in session about the circumstances of his convictions, he threatened people with being put on his “enemies list,” which apparently is where those of us who checked into the facts instead of just accepting his lies found ourselves. He told the excomm he would not run for office in CA again, then two weeks later ran for vice chair in San Bernardino County. He demonstrated a pattern of lying and of putting his own interests well ahead of the party’s interests.

    Had he had any integrity, he would have admitted the truth when originally confronted, expressed regret that his past might harm the image of the party and offered to resign. They probably would not have accepted it, and this whole business would have been averted.

    The judicial committee allowed Barnes to run roughshod over the proceedings, turning it into a witch hunt against his “enemies list.” I was not privy to the entire proceeding, but what I heard was that he managed to put several of us (myself included) on trial, lie directly about things, misrepresent things (like accusing people of “killing small animals for fun” or of “abusing their girlfriends” or “refusing to pay for t-shirts”) that had nothing to do with the charges against HIM. And the judcomm let him do it without asking any questions or returning the focus to his defense against the actual charges.

    Then in less than 1/5 the time the hearing took, they reached a unanimous decision to reinstate. UNANIMOUS.

    Stone soup, I wouldn’t use words like “kill” when you gloat about your victory. It sounds a bit menacing.

  41. LPCA Fact-Checker

    Barnes’s 52-page court file did not actually say that Barnes was “unable to control himself”. The records in fact say he “represents a danger to young males in the community if untreated.” Also: “His therapeutic goal is to remember the abuse he believes he suffered at his father’s hands. He believes that as long as he is not consciously aware of his own abuse history he will continue to be dangerous.”

    Nothing in Barnes’s 52-page file supports the recklessly false claim above that Barnes was “unrepentant”. The records in fact say: He stated he was severely depressed after having realized he had molested boys in his scout troop. He stated he was appalled by his behavior. […] He acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions, and expressed some relief that he had been called to account

    Tabling at JSA is of course not an “unaccompanied setting”. If an attorney or parole officer thinks that a college student is a “minor”, then that person is just as confused as Cohen himself so clearly is.

    Cohen has offered no evidence of Barnes “lying”, but Cohen’s statement about Barnes being “unrepentant” is so recklessly false that it’s hard to see how it could not be a lie.

    Cohen’s other vague and unsubstantiated smears should be evaluated by his record on the few claims he offers that can actually be checked.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus

  42. Bruce Cohen

    Carolyn’s report seems to be pretty much spot on here. She knows a lot more about the proceedings in Matthew’s trial than I.

    All I know is the vote was 5-0 to Reinstate.

    One small correction, I have grounds to say Matthew is ‘unrepentant’. I read the court file.

    He says he’s not cured, hasn’t had treatment, can’t control his impulses and he sure doesn’t seem very apologetic.

    I know he refused to apologize to me publicly, he wanted to do it privately only a few years ago and I would not accept.

    Anyway, based on the court file and my knowledge of his behavior and actions, I feel he is unrepentant.

    Until and unless you read the file, including the Shrink’s report and Matthew’s pleadings, you have no grounds to say I have no grounds.

    One more thing:
    Are you asserting Matthew is repentant?

  43. Bruce Cohen

    It’s rather hard to say I am smearing Matthew Barnes here. I am stating my interpretation of the facts and the court file.

    I can pick out quotes from the court file to support my assertions, too.

    The point here is that Matthew hid his past from people he should have told.

    Morally and legally.

    The point here is that all of his now ex friends on the LPCA Board are openly saying he’s a serial liar.

    Something I’ve been saying for years.
    Many.

    No smearing.
    I think he’s a danger to children.
    And to the LP.

    If you want him around, I suggest you lobby to keep the votes around to support him.

    The Long Beach Convention would be a good place for you to stand up and nominate him for an Officer position.

    Though I do think the people who did so in the past sorta kinda wish they had listened to me and NOT done so.

    Hey, it’s been fun playing chess with you.
    You’re in check mate and have been.

    Let’s start over and play a different game now.

  44. LPCA Fact-Checker

    Cohen: I can pick out quotes from the court file to support my assertions, too.

    Not for the “unrepetant” assertion, you can’t. Go ahead and try.

    Ms. Marbry, a broken promise is not necessarily a “lie”. Are you claiming that Barnes told the ExCom he would refuse any county office nomination? Promising not to seek office isn’t actually the same thing as promising to refuse a nomination. Don’t make Cohen’s mistake of confusing what you feel with what you actually read or hear.

    Had he had any integrity, he would have admitted the truth when originally confronted, expressed regret that his past might harm the image of the party and offered to resign.

    That is apparently what Barnes did when he resigned from the ExCom. A press report said that his county LP knew about his record when they subsequently elected him. Was that report wrong?

  45. LPCA Fact-Checker

    @48 note that when Bill Reed won 15% in his 2000 congressional race, there was no Democrat in the race. California Libertarians facing only one major-party opponent always score in double-digit percentages — as did the other two such LPCA congressional candidates that year.

  46. Gene Trosper

    @60 And your point is? Bill could have ran a basic, do-nothing Libertarian “campaign” and came in third place. However, we decided to run an active campaign, raise money, attend forums, create a nice website, send out timely press releases, and blanket the district with signs. Ah, but most Libertarians have no concept of using a race such as the one Bill ran in to garner earned media and make a good showing as a means of building support for the next election. You take advantage of such situations and convince people (in this case Democrats) to vote third party. For many, that would have been the first time they ever chose a third party candidate, especially a Libertarian. The goal was obviously to get a nice turnout percentage-wise, but the real goal was to get second place, not third. We accomplished that goal because we had a plan and worked hard toward achieving that goal.

  47. You will lose people

    I guarantee you, A person like Mr. Barnes should in NO WAY BE IN THE FRONT LINE REPRESENTING the libertarian party. PERIOD. This will reflect and look poorly for the libertarian party. You have NOOOO IDEA you are going to help destroy this party. The consequences will not be good. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

  48. tab

    “A person like Mr. Barnes should in NO WAY BE IN THE FRONT LINE REPRESENTING the libertarian party. PERIOD. ”

    This is the truth. I would resign immediately if a former pedophile was put into any position within my state party.

    Even if he is reformed, everyone who doesn’t know the situation is going to point out that the Libertarian Party allowed a known pedophile to hold a position within the party. Never a good PR move. Even in a liberal state like CA.

  49. Jill Pyeatt

    I was Libertarian Girl’s source from earlier today. I was muzzled until my resignation took place, which it now has. I am no longer on the Executive Committee, so I’m free to speak.

    Matt Barnes never showed any remorse for his actions. He never talked about the children he hurt, or their families. He never acknowledged that his poor choices put his co-committee members in a terrible, and for me, agonizing, position. However, his behavior after the revelation showed the true nature of his deep sociopathy. He has done everything he can to manipulate those who fall for his brutish ways (not me). His degree of lying has been positively abominable. His character would never be tolerated by any decent group of people. He very clearly values his own ego above the interest of our party.

    Mark Hinkle must have been out of fucking mind. All I can say is he sure as hell should NOT be our national chair. Mickey Mouse would have better judgement.

  50. Gene Trosper

    The fallout over this is BIG. I am hearing of LPCA ExCom members resigning over this. I have confirmed at least two have resigned and am hearing perhaps a couple more.

  51. Gene Trosper

    Sorry to hear, Jill. Unfortunately, I could see this coming a mile away. When a newspaper in Redlands reported on this situation a couple months ago, I made the decision then to get out of the party and step down from my position as chairman because I was not going to be put in a position of having to defend the party over a pedophile, especially a party which has a small segment that has no problem with NAMBLA-like sexuality.

  52. Bruce Cohen

    All I can say is:

    SEE I TOLD YOU SO!

    and

    I AM NOT THE BAD GUY.

    Jill, you can apologize to me right about now.

  53. IF FELONY CANT VOTE

    From what I understand if you have a felony on record, you are precluded from voting in regular election, so why in HELL should they even have a say in the LP PARTY.

  54. LibertarianGirl

    LPCA Phrenologist // Jan 26, 2010 at 6:18 pm aka Matthew Barnes

    If you as a 19-year-old troubled alcoholic fondled a young teenager, then by definition you as a 41-year-old with a subsequently clean record are nevertheless a permanent threat to all children and must be jailed for life for the good of society.

    me_ um , nobody said jailed for life , nice exaggeration. but the name of your game is “the minimize” .”troubled” “alcoholic” – the excuse – “fondled” –sounds innocent enuf– “teenagers”– practically adults .
    .

    you didnt “fondle teenagers” , you molested children.

    If you ever shoplifted, you’re a lifelong klepto. If you ever played with fire, you’re a lifelong pyro. If you ever went streaking, you’re a lifelong exhibitionist. If you ever looked in a neighbor’s window, you’re a lifelong voyeur. None of these conditions can be reformed or controlled.

    me_ again the minimize, none of those other actions are in the same ballpark as yours. The store that gets shoplifted from won’t have permanent damage to it .

    Your non-disclosure to anyone of anything that might disturb anyone is an act of force initiation. em on our membership.

    me_ yet again , the minimize , “might disturb” , that is such an understatement.

    uh uh , I aint buying

  55. David F. Nolan

    I’m not usually on Bruce Cohen’s side, but from what I’ve read here, the CA LP JC screwed up badly here. Before I jump to any final conclusions, however, I’ll talk directly to Mark Hinkle, if I can.

  56. Carolyn Marbry

    #59, a broken promise IS a lie. The promise itself was the lie, the breaking of it the proof that it was a lie. Are you suggesting that a broken promise is okay because in your definition it is NOT a lie? Really?

    My understanding from Mr. Collier is that Barnes agreed not to seek office in the state again. Those in the state leadership meant ANY office in the state, Barnes apparently decided to play lawyer and be literal about it.

    That’s the least of it. After all, if the San Bernardino Party had had a lick of sense, they’d have realized the liability they open themselves up to by having him as an officer, especially with his hosting of party-related events, and quietly allowed him to continue as a member without re-electing him as an officer. After all, he would still control them as he always has. What need has he of a position as officer?

    As to your assertion that he “admitted the truth,” no sir, he did not. He lied to them repeatedly until they confronted him with the facts in the court document.

  57. Carolyn Marbry

    #68, only certain classes of felons are stripped of their right to vote for life. Many regain it once they’ve completed parole.

  58. Bruce Cohen

    JSA is for High School students.
    They are almost all under voting age.

    I know because they all are excited about getting to vote when they turn 18.

    I’ve done a bunch of them.

    And spoken to High School classes of various sorts about the LP.

    How many times has Matthew done the same?
    I’m only guessing, but in three years, most likely more than once.

    Hmm, and those rooms are full of what,
    500+ kids and about 25 adults or so?

    Hmm, YOU do the math on THAT one.

    And if Matty is so darn repentant and reformed, how come he didn’t tell anyone about it, especially at those events or people’s houses?

    There is some more mathematics for you.

    And which troll is Matty? I don’t get the feeling he’s participating, just reading.

  59. LPCA Fact Checker

    Mr. Trosper, the point @60 is simply that 15% (it was actually closer to 16%) in a race against only one major-party opponent is nowhere near as impressive as 15% against the usual set of two major-party opponents. It’s nice that you finished ahead of the other minor-party candidate, and you may very well have managed an excellent campaign, but let’s not pretend you would have beaten the Democrat if one had been running.

    Ms. Marbry, if you have evidence that Barnes specifically promised to refuse any county officer nomination after his record became public, please share it. If you don’t have such evidence, then please tell us if this is the standard of mud-slinging you would like people to apply to allegations about you and your allies.

    Even if you had evidence that Barnes made this specific promise, his subsequent breaking of it doesn’t necessarily mean he committed a “lie” when he made the promise. This is just a basic fact of English vocabulary.

    Ms. Pyeatt, your sweeping statement that “Barnes never showed any remorse for his actions” seems to be either an outright lie, or evidence that you didn’t read the case file, or evidence that you just don’t care about truth in this case. Is there another possibility I”m missing?

    Mr. Trosper, Barnes served his time for these three acts (fondling 11- to 13- year-old boys) that he committed two decades ago when he was 19. He presumably paid into the victim’s restitution fund that his case file quotes the judge saying he would have to pay. His has expressed deep regret for his crimes, which he called “heinous”. There is still apparently no evidence that he ever offended again in the subsequent two decades, despite claims here that he has had ample opportunity. He quietly resigned his state ExCom seat when word of his record first circulated. His county knew of his record when they subsequently elected him. Shouldn’t we blame his county at least as much as him for the embarrassment of his again being an officer? If he should be expelled, shouldn’t his county also be dis-affiliated? (Same question to you, Ms. Marbry, especially since you say he “controls” his county affiliate.)

    LG, it’s very revealing that you say fondling “sounds innocent enough” to you. Fondling an 11- or 13-year-old doesn’t sound “innocent” at all to the Fact Checker, but it’s also not quite the image that comes to mind when one hears “molested a child”. Do you care about the actual facts of this case, or are you trying to conjure witches? Speaking of facts, you claim that “LPCA Phrenologist” is Barnes, but Fact Checker happens to know that your claim is false. What else do you think you know about this case, but actually don’t?

    Correction to my earlier comment above: the case file says Barnes didn’t become a substance abuser until after the crimes in question. (Who fact-checks the Fact Checker?)

    Cohen, thank you for making my point: JSA tabling is done in crowded rooms, and so is obviously not a violation of the California law that you claim it to be. And please wake us when you’ve found those quotes from the case file saying Barnes was unrepentant.

  60. LPCA Fact Checker

    You wrote @61: the real goal was to get second place, not third. We accomplished that goal because we had a plan and worked hard toward achieving that goal.

    That goal was most likely achieved as soon as it was determined that your other opponent was Natural Law rather than a Democrat. In 2000, California Libertarians out-polled their Natural Law opponents in 35 out of 44 congressional races.

    Nobody is saying you didn’t work hard, or run a fine campaign. All I’m saying is that even a paper LP campaign in that race would have gotten double digits, and that it’s somewhat misleading to cite the 15% result out of the context of having only one major-party opponent.

  61. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bruce,

    Please tell me that the following does not mean what it seems to mean:

    —–
    They are almost all under voting age.

    I know because they all are excited about getting to vote when they turn 18.

    I’ve done a bunch of them.
    —–

  62. Gene Trosper

    @76 I don’t think it had much to do with the fact it was a Natural Law candidate. What I do know is that one political reporter I dealt with from The Californian newspaper in Temecula did some informal exit polling and told me a handful told him they recognized Bill Reed’s name. The fact is that we ran a more high profile campaign than Nat Adam did. Campaigning is all about name recognition. I do remember getting a statement of vote from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and compared the vote totals with the precincts we heavily campaigned in. There was a correlation. Before i got burned out, my next goal was to research precincts and find areas where the Democrats were especially weak and then work to displace the Democrats in those precincts. I think it could have been done. Unfortunately, no one was much interested in undertaking that project, so the free market of ideas meant that plan was dropped. So be it.

  63. Bruce Cohen

    LOL I meant I have gone to a bunch of those events, by ‘done’. Oh geez, you are a funny man, Tommy knocker boy.

  64. Don Lake .......... More Hyperbole

    You will lose people // Jan 26, 2010:
    “Barnes should in NO WAY BE IN THE FRONT LINE REPRESENTING the libertarian party. PERIOD. This will reflect and look poorly for the libertarian party. You have NOOOOOOO IDEA you are going to help destroy this party. The consequences will not be good. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.”

    Lake: Well I am not going to win any friends on this issue, but as a Californian and a former rocket scientist, I have some first hand observations on West Coast Third Party types.

    Libs are considered far and wide as off beat white males [30 to 60] whom do not have ‘regular jobs’ or ‘regular hobbies’. Lots of small business people and lots of attorneys.

    Argumentative lone wolves whom can’t get along with any one, including and especially other Libs. Libertarians keep saying ‘what do you have against freedom’ ??????

    The reply often comes back ‘we are regular folks, not raving lunatics and anarchists’ …….. Every group has their weak points but it is stupid to spot light faded links.and allow others to exploit rotten public relations.

    All groups have their PR problems. Wanna clear a standard American room ????? Just shout the word ‘Socialist’ and or ‘Communist’! Greens are effeminate gardeners. Bible Beaters don’t know if they are churches or political parties. And ‘reformers’ need reform more than any one else.

    But an off beat personality, much less some one with a criminal record, has the biggest impact on Libertarians, and it ain’t pretty. Folks leaving the party due to Mister Barnes’ high profile ?????? I do not doubt it, don’t doubt it at all!
    one has their

  65. Carolyn Marbry

    Fact checker, anyone who has ever attended a meeting of San Bernardino County is well aware that Barnes controls it. Ask anyone from Chairman Takenaga down. You may think it’s not so obvious, but it is.

    I already addressed your point about the promise not to run for office in the state. Or did you miss it?

    Never mind. I don’t need to talk to liars and pedophiles, nor to those who feel the need to somehow differentiate between a 288a conviction and “real sex.” You sound like Bill Clinton arguing that oral sex isn’t sex. 288a means physical contact with a child under 14 with the intent to sexually gratify the perpetrator or the child. “It was only fondling” of children under Barnes’ leadership, children who were dependent on him as a responsible adult and whom they were to be expected to obey, should be enough to inform the opinions of anyone reading this thread as to the moral compass of this “factchecker.”

  66. XC

    People, You were not in the LPCA executive session in September. You were not there for the agreement to step down from the Ex-Comm and SB Vice chair position. The JC is in error.
    May they reconsider.

    XC

  67. Carolyn Marbry

    By the way, factchecker, it was SIX counts. He pled to three. Might want to check your… well, you know…

  68. LPCA Fact Checker

    Ms. Marbry, I didn’t say Barnes isn’t respected and influential in the LPSBd. I simply asked why the LPSBd shouldn’t be dis-affiliated. Got an answer?

    You plainly haven’t provided the evidence I asked for about this alleged Barnes promise. If you had, you could quote it. You can’t.

    LG is the one here who said fondling sounds innocent enough; I agreed with Barnes that it’s heinous. When you put “only fondling” in quotes and pretend I wrote it, you reveal precisely why we shouldn’t trust your vague evasive hand-waving about Barnes’s alleged promises.

    I never said their weren’t more allegations than the three Barnes pled to. Are you saying that Americans aren’t innocent until proven guilty, or that government prosecutors never strategically over-charge defendants? Are you suggesting the three unconvicted charges tipped this expulsion case in your mind?

    XC, Libertarians don’t believe in secret evidence. If you can’t convince the JudCom and the membership of your claims about what happened behind closed doors, then why have JudCom review of expulsions at all?

  69. Bruce Cohen

    XC@82: So you are saying that in September, the LPCA Board knew about Matthew, but covered it all up until forced to address this?

    That’s not good news for anyone.

    Who’s idea was it to hide these facts from people that might want to know? People like PARENTS, maybe?

    Why would it be better for the LPCA to endanger people’s children that to admit to the mistake and air this all out once and for all?

    I can’t imagine how that would be moral, legal or honorable to keep this secret and under wraps.

    Especially since Mister Takenaga ran largely under the banner of “openness and transparency” claming his predecessors were somehow secretive about some unspecified matters…

    I think this is the bombshell news of the day if true, and it does seem to make sense, you know?

  70. Ralph

    How this page evolved from some interesting fact-trading on USLP revenues to CALP inside baseball is something.

    From where I’m sitting a continent away, IMHO if not a lot of ego then this sounds like a tale of yet another mole planted to discredit the LP and party officers not used to that dirty tricks stuff falling for it. If there is a story here, could IPR or one of the commenters actually run one with some background so we know who is who and what this is all about? Not to mention how we went from Phillies to Shane to this saga.

  71. LPCA Fact Checker

    Cohen offers zero evidence for his libelous claim that the LPCA “endanger[ed] people’s children”. He cannot name a single such child.

    Such mendacious attempts at Party defamation are what provoked the effort to expel Cohen from the LP. Before it rules on that expulsion, the LPCA Judicial Committee should review Cohen’s libelous charges above that 1) Barnes was “unrepentant” at his conviction, and 2) the LPCA “endanger[ed] people’s children” when it pressured Barnes to resign from ExCom but did not initially expel him or further publicize his record.

  72. At LPCA

    can you clarify this more clearly.

    Such mendacious attempts at Party defamation are what provoked the effort to expel Cohen from the LP.

  73. LibertarianGirl

    LG, it’s very revealing that you say fondling “sounds innocent enough” to you. Fondling an 11- or 13-year-old doesn’t sound “innocent” at all to the Fact Checker, but it’s also not quite the image that comes to mind when one hears “molested a child”. Do you care about the actual facts of this case, or are you trying to conjure witches? Speaking of facts, you claim that “LPCA Phrenologist” is Barnes, but Fact Checker happens to know that your claim is false. What else do you think you know about this case, but actually don’t?

    me_ the only thing im wrong about is MAYBE phren wasnt Barnes . I am absolutely correct at the attempt at minimization. I have the file on my desktop dummy and I can read , thanks!

  74. Bruce Cohen

    I have been asked by a Libertarian friend to discuss my use of the word “unrepentant” with regards to Matthew Barnes.

    He feels it was less than honest on my part to use this word.

    Specifically, the Court file does not use that word to describe Mister Barnes.

    I do not believe Mister Barnes is repentant or has recieved treatment, though I could be wrong.

    My personal opinion based on the facts I have seen and my experiences personally, and those I have been told from people I feel I can rely on make me come to that conclusion that Matthew has not repented.

    However, I don’t find that specific term applied to him by the court in the court file in this case.

    I don’t want anyone to say I have been inaccurate or have shaded the truth in any way.

    I hope this clarifies the matter and if not, I am willing to listen to any constructive criticism or correction.

  75. LibertarianGirl

    you said “disturbed , alcoholic fondles teenagers”
    UNTRUE!!!!!!! he molested CHILDREN!

    that is a gross attempt at minimization and i ripped a new ahole above.

    of course i dont think fondling is innocent enuf , but your use of was attempting to portray it as such . so was the use of “troubled” and “alcoholic” . I know troubled alcoholics and none of them molest kids , are you saying being a troubled alcoholic is an excuse.?

    he did not fondle teenagers , he molested children.
    since when is an 11 yr old a teenager?? tlk about lies

  76. Bruce Cohen

    I know that Fact Checker wants to be my guardian angel. And make sure I am pure in my words and representations.

    And I know who the Fact Checker is, but I still won’t FCs cover.

    While I tried to accomodate on my use of a negative of the verb ‘repent’, I cannot accomodate on the use of the word ‘danger’.

    I think it’s irresponsible not to immediately and clearly communicate the information we are discussing today to interested parties.

    I think anyone with minor children should have known, and it was the LPCA’s collective responsibility to share that with everyone.

    And to immediately suspend Matthew.
    Not discuss forever and listen to a bunch of ever changing excuse coverup stories.

    Look, this was so severe, he should have been suspended immediately, not counseled and slowly pressured into resigning from one seat, but left another seat or so and his Membership.

    Please.

    The LPCA was too little and too late to this party.
    And they are still playing catch up.

    Danger to children from this man who now people on the LPCA Board are calling a “Monster”?

    Yeah, he’s a danger all right.

    I’m not looking for a fight with anyone here.

    All I wanted in the first place was a Suspension for Barnes and then for him to be successfully Expelled.

    I never wanted a big scandal or fight.

    This is not about me.

  77. It doesn't matter

    #1. Whether a person is a drug user, alcoholic, or etc. Does not justify any excuse for a person to moleste anyone. This added substance can actually make the situation worse. But this is not an excuse.

    #2. Call it what you will, fondle or not is still a form of molestation. Just like physical abuse. He hits me sometimes, or its just a slap in the face or as someone else stated. It was oral satisfaction not real sex. The truth is, physical contact is abuse. Whether physcial assult, molestation, just as mental abuse. Fondle can also cause mental trama to a person. You don’t touch another person with unwarrented advances period. There can differences in warm hugs over touching in inappropiate areas.

  78. LPCA Fact-Checker

    Cohen still has not justified his libelous falsehoods @52: “The Defense agreed… So did Matthew’s Shrink. Even Matthew said he was unreformed, unrepentant and unable to control himself.”

    Barnes’s 52-page court file did not say that Barnes was unable to control himself. The records in fact say he “represents a danger to young males in the community if untreated.” Also: “His therapeutic goal is to remember the abuse he believes he suffered at his father’s hands. He believes that as long as he is not consciously aware of his own abuse history he will continue to be dangerous.”

    Barnes’s court file also did not suggest that Barnes said he was unrepentant. The records in fact say “He stated he was severely depressed after having realized he had molested boys in his scout troop. He stated he was appalled by his behavior. […] He acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions, and expressed some relief that he had been called to account”.

    Cohen was flatly wrong when he said that Barnes’s alleged (and unconfirmed) participation in LP tabling in a roomful of JSA high-school students constituted a violation of the statutory requirement that Barnes not “work directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children”. And Cohen was hilariously wrong to claim that Barnes broke the law by attending college eventsfor an LP candidate.

    As Ms. Marbry has pointed out, Cohen has zero evidence that Barnes has ever re-offended in the decades since his crimes. Nor has Cohen named a single child that the LPCA “endangered” by not expelling Barnes. As a former Vice Chair of the LPCA, Cohen’s charge that the LPCA “endanger[ed] people’s children” is irresponsible and arguably libelous.

    LG, the facts of the case remain as follows. Barnes served his time for these three acts (fondling 11- to 13- year-old boys) that he committed two decades ago when he was their 19-year-old scout leader. He presumably paid into the victim’s restitution fund that his case file quotes the judge saying he would have to pay. His expressed deep regret for his crimes, which he aptly called “heinous”. There is still apparently no evidence that he ever offended again in the subsequent two decades, despite claims here that he has had ample opportunity. He quietly resigned his state ExCom seat when his court file first circulated. His county knew of his record when they subsequently elected him.

    You can shout all you want, but the facts remain what they are. No less, and no more. The LPCA JudCom is to be commended for judging this case on the merits and the facts, rather than joining the mob in their witch hunt. The LPSBd knows everything about Barnes that the mob knows, but they elected him to a county officer anyway. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in demanding Barnes’s expulsion needs to explain why they’re not also calling for the LPSBd to be disaffiliated.

  79. SBCLP member

    Hows this for a fact Mr. Checker?

    It is SBCLP not LPSBd.

    Lets all play a game! Since you all seem to be good and active Libertarians we should get some fine results.

    Name the last county level meeting you went to, the approx date, and approx how many people were there.

    I will go first:

    San Bernardino County Libertarian Party Monthly Meeting in Colton, Ca. in Jan 2010. There were 34 people there and it was FUN!

  80. LPCA Fact-Checker

    LP San Benito and LP Santa Barbara might disagree with you. I use the official California 2- and 3-letter county abbreviations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_California_State_Highways/County_Routes#Abbreviations. So I should have written LPSBD.

    Similarly, I use LPCA, even though California Libertarians seem to think that they are the only LPC.

    34 people at a monthly county LP meeting is very impressive. I doubt any other LPCA affiliate can make such a claim.

  81. SBCLP member

    Nice one Libertarian Girl! Clark County must be really growing 🙂

    How many were at the business meeting just prior? My example was a business meeting.

    If we are going to include county special events, I would have to point at the October Southern California Libertarian Conference hosted by the SBCLP. They had more paid attendees than the last state convention had delegates!

    When you include the college student volunteers some of us think there may have been over 100 people there.

    It was at Dave and Busters and SUPER FUN. There were outside organizations that came and asked for our help like Equality California and the TRC 2010 campaign to decriminalize marijuana.

    Some really neat speakers talked about running for office or getting on a board, but the best was the guy from Orange County that talked about art in politics. The guy from the Reason Foundation was and pretty good but not the best.

  82. Bruce Cohen

    Listen if I can do it and if San Berdoo can do it, other people can do it too.

    Kristi Stone in San Diego has proven repeatedly she can get good turnout at events, raise and spend money and get votes as a Candidate and even recruit members.

    It takes being organized, having a good plan, and having reasonable people.

    When you see Officers, current and past, throwing tantrums and yelling at Activists or venue employees, it’s sheer embarrassment.

    I just don’t get it.
    This stuff happened before I got involved, and has kept on happening after I got uninvolved.

    This is not about me, it’s about people who have no social graces.

    People who would be unwelcome at a Kiwanis Club or PTA meeting should not be LP members, the way I see it.

    I don’t care how you dress or what you think, it’s about how you act, and how much work you do for the LP.

    I just love these in my face people who tell me to leave the party because I am impure, but give nothing and help not.

    If the LP of San Berdoo can do it, so should you.
    No controversy.
    No telling people how to think.
    Just do it.

  83. Broce Cuhen

    Anything good that a Libertarian has done, I’ve done at least as well at some unspecified and unverifiable time in the past. But this is not about me.

    Anything bad that a Libertarian does, I warned about that person in vague ways at unspecified times to unidentified people. But this is not about my prescience.

    It’s very embarrassing when unnamed present and past LP officers throw undescribed tantrums and yell at people so often that LP insiders have no idea what incident I might be talking about. It doesn’t happen in my soothing presence, but you can take my word that it’s happened, because I saw it. Or, I mean, you can call this or that LP insider and try to collect actual evidence for the rumor I’m spreading about it. I don’t bother assembling such actual evidence, because this is not about me.

    It’s about civility and constructiveness, and avoiding needless controversy. That’s what I’m all about.

  84. Matthew M. Robare

    The Libertarian Party’s biggest problem has always been its emphasis on winning elections. That has resulted in the laughable candidacies of Ed “Low-tax liberal” Clark and the Barr-Root campaign of 2008. By being inside the Beltway, waging what amounts to intellectual war on the Ludwig von Mises Institute people over a disagreement Ed Crane had with Rothbard, Rockwell, and Ron Paul back in the 1980’s, and by alienating the Radicals the National Party has driven away many of its best thinkers and activists. The LP has drifted towards statism and neo-conservativism. It needs to be more involved with hyperlocal activism and grassroots stuff. Don’t run for Congress in 2010, run for city council.

  85. Ralph

    See:
    http://upcoming.yahoo.com/photos/223647
    Dec 21st, we had 14 new people, with a phone-in for stalwarts for party business.
    Speaker on marihuana initiative .

    http://upcoming.yahoo.com/photos/198092
    Sept 21st, combined social, 20+ people.
    Speaker from Dems on joint work on ballot fairness. and present from our people in office.

    We also have informal intake meetings and training meetings that average 1-6 new people evry other month.

    Pinellas covers 1 million population and has a several people in public office. I’m the member and outreach guru.

  86. Brian Holtz

    OK, who accidentally uttered the spell to conjure up the ghost of Rothbard @104? The Clark campaign was principled and eloquent. History lesson time:

    After first opposing the creation of the LP, Rothbard joined it by 1974 and quickly helped orchestrate a complete rewrite of its Platform, replacing a compact moderate minimal-government platform with an abolitionist one that became bloated with quasi-anarchist positions like personal secession, completely open borders, privatizing all streets, and immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws. Within a few years, the LP’s initial meteoric growth stopped in its tracks. Rothbard used vicious personal attacks to push out the LP’s moderate leaders, who in 1983 took refuge in the Cato Institute. In 1989, Rothbard himself abandoned the LP he had hollowed out, and by 1992 was supporting Pat Buchanan for President. His lieutenant Bill Evers, an anarchist who helped Rothbard rewrite the LP platform in the 1970’s, ended up as an adviser to George W. Bush, and worked in Iraq in the occupation government before taking a position in Bush’s federal Department of Education. The entire leadership of the Rothbard-era Radical Caucus — Rothbard, Evers, Garris, Raimondo, Costello, Hunter, Rockwell — abandoned the LP to back GOP candidates ranging from Ron Paul to Pat Buchanan.

  87. AGAIN AS I ASK TO LPCA

    At LPCA // Jan 27, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    can you clarify this more clearly. What mendacious attempts.

    Such mendacious attempts at Party defamation are what provoked the effort to expel Cohen from the LP.

  88. Nostradamus

    The LP should have never been named the Libertarian Party. Parties and politics are easily corruptible, ideas are not. The misrepresentation of terminology associated with heretical parties and politics likely hurts the cause of freedom. When neo-con parasites like Bruce Cohen or Eric Dondero are able to describe themselves as ‘libertarian,’ the word immediately begins to lose meaning to those horrified (and rightly so) by such false prophets.

  89. Morey

    Brian’s a little fuzzy on the history lesson, so I’ll help him out.

    In 1974, the party moved from an objectivist party line to a radical one. This contributed to the rise of the party over the next several years. The LP’s electoral peak were the elections of 1978-1980, during which the average LP candidate garnered 6% of the vote. In 1982 those numbers took a nosedive. I’m told that the LP’s sugardaddy stopped putting out by that time. And in 1983, of course, the moneyed and moderate faction didn’t get the convention results they wanted, and walked out.

  90. Gene Berkman

    Brian @ # 108 – your history is partly right. Also party wrong.

    When Rothbard got involved in the Libertarian Party, the platform did change – but Ed Crane and the others now @ Cato supported making the platform more hardcore.

    Crane & Co dropped out of the Libertarian Party because they were disappointed with the vote totals for Ed Clark. They expected that the national advertising they bought with Dave Koch’s money would get Clark “3 or 4 million” votes and establish the LP as a viable third party.

    When Rothbard dropped out of the LP, it was because he was disappointed with Ron Paul’s vote total.

    Many others have dropped out because the LP candidates for President consistently fail to achieve “breakthrough” vote totals. Only if we start lower will we ever have the level of “success” needed to keep people active in the party of liberty.

  91. Just a thought

    Seems to me that if the radicals (grassroots, activists, anarchists, etc…) and the objectivists (reform, pragmatists, minimalists, etc…) could live together and both work their magic in their own spheres instead of spending their time, money and energy in knocking down the efforts of the other, that the LP would do quite well.

  92. Brian Holtz

    As I said, Rothbard started radicalizing the LP in 1974, but the process wasn’t instantaneous. For example, immediate non-enforcement of tax laws wasn’t in the 1976 platform, and is first seen in the 1980 platform. Personal secession still wasn’t in the platform in 1980, but it was there by 1986. (I don’t have the ’78, ’82, or ’84 platforms.)

    The LP’s 1978-1980 “electoral peak” was associated closely with so-called “moderate” Ed Clark, who in 1978 got a stunning 5.5% result for California governor, before his record-setting result as the 1980 LP nominee. Despite Clark being savaged by the Rothbardians as unprincipled, his campaign was at least as radical as those run by today’s LP radicals.

    Gene, I didn’t say that the Cato/Crane folks weren’t initially involved in radicalizing the platform. Indeed, they were initially allies of Rothbard, before splitting during the 1980 Clark campaign. (The issue was nuclear power, of all things.) The Crane/Koch/Cato faction didn’t leave the LP until their side lost at the 1983 presidential nominating convention. If they now say it was because of Clark’s 1980 totals, that’s a post-hoc rationalization. For the whole story, read Rothbard’s Oct. 1983 Libertarian Forum article: “Total Victory: How Sweet It Is!” — and marvel and the level of pure venom he could excrete.

  93. Robert Capozzi

    Brian, yes, Morey glosses over the years of vicious attacks that Rothbard lobbed at the “Crane Machine” and the “Kochtopus.” MNR’s Lib. Forum can be read at the LvMI site if there’s ANY question…I cannot imagine any fair-minded reader would conclude otherwise.

  94. Just a thought

    How could Rothbard on one hand sell libertarian ethics as a pure philosophic representation and then on the other spew venom?

    Personally I can’t reconcile these things.

    Didn’t Rothbard’s application of philosophy include respect for other’s work when it does not interfere with his rights? Does the destruction of other libertarians hard work not also fall under his lectures on justice and proportionality?

    How does a pragamtist reconcile losing one nomination fight with withdrawing an entire faction from a coalition? Isn’t that also kind of like shooting the horse for not winning a race? It does not sound very measured, moderate or practical.

    Again, it sounds like the LP has come on the verge a couple of times through one faction or another and fallen because of 2 things:

    1. The gains did not meat expectations.
    2. The other factions were so vitriolic that they chose to use the natural moral hit to destroy the will of the other (allied) group.
    3. The hate and malice did little more than destroy the morale of Libertarians and hurt the party each time.

    I see people saying it happened with EVERY presidential campaign. Is this True? Did it happen with Barr? Badnarik? Bowne?

    Is it only the “radical” Rothbard people that have this venomous tack?

  95. SBCLP Member

    Lets play another game. On a scale from 1 to 10 how confident are you that if you brought a close friend to your local Libertarian meeting that they would thank you for the experience?

    My answer: 10

    My county has a LOT of people that are just plain friendly. Friends that I have brought made 2 or 3 new friends before they left their first meeting and knew just about everyone’s name there. I know because I they would relate all the great conversations they had with various people on the way home. Long term they have felt invested enough to want to come back over and over again.

  96. Someone Who Knows

    Just a thought,

    Because political philosophers make terrible politicians. Philosophers should inspire politicians, not be them.

  97. Tranquil

    SBCLP has made getting involved with the Libertarian Party of California not only worry free, but the group has opened their arms to accept all those interested and really made me feel at home. The wide range of personalities brought a setting where I felt like I could share my ideas and beliefs without any worry of backlash. It’s like another family in all honesty. The county works hard to achieve the goals they set down and does a great job of helping people get involved in the means to accomplish said goals, whether it be planning a convention or just a simple protest on the street any Saturday afternoon.

  98. Someone Who Knows

    Brian,

    Way to be intellectually dishonest. I would encourage anyone here who hasn’t read “Total Victory: How Sweet It Is!” to do so. Where is the venom of which you speak, precisely?

    MacBride and the Clark Machine were desperately trying to push out the principled in favor of a pragmatic approach. They were attempting to push Rothbard and others out of the party in doing so.

    In fact, the Bergland [principled] camp had offered Crane’s people positions within his campaign, but Crane/MacBride chose to ignore this and pretend the offer didn’t exist so they could root out their enemy. Yes, shockingly, the unity crowd [pragmatists] were, in fact, only for unity if they got to lead it. When they didn’t, they bailed. In fact, the Crane Machine didn’t even stay for the nomination after-party… they exited as quickly, and sourly, as possible. So much for “unity.”

    This is the victory of which Rothbard speaks: shedding the Crane Machine, which never sought true unity, only control. Thus, the party of principle could have a chance to continue.

    Other thoughts concerning “Total Victory”:

    Those interested should see why the pragmatists lost: Ravenal, their candidate, was very flawed. He was iffy on abortion, had a notorious temper, softness towards the draft, was proud of his CFR involvement, and was in favor of forced sterilizations [like IPR’s resident mental case Bob Milnes].

    “Total Victory” has an excellent paragraph about reformer-types, excerpted from the Robert Heinlein book A Time For Love [page 110]. It’s long, so I won’t re-type it, but it’s on page 9 of “Total Victory” for those who care to read it.

    The convention in reference, 1983, saw the rise of Mary Ruwart. She was a major factor in deciding between Bergland and Ravenal, and ultimately backed Bergland.

    A great quote from Rothbard concerning one staying true to principle over pragmatism:
    “For almost always, “unity” is a scam, a call to abandon principle and follow the leader into some form of tyranny or sellout.”

  99. Someone Who Knows

    How many different names is pedophile Barnes going to post under? As Someone Who Knows, it’s annoying to see so many non-named posters – it makes my own account, or anyone who posts pseudo-anonymously, look linked to that sicko.

  100. For anyone who wants to know

    Anyone wishing to look-up Pedophilia.
    DSM Book Diagnosis code 302.20

  101. David F. Nolan

    As one who was present from Day One of the LP, I’ll offer a couple of comments about the Crane-Clark-Rothbard era. Without going into details, I will confirm that Rothbard was a brilliant man, but often very contentious and difficult to deal with, the Craniacs WERE all about control, and the earliest LP platforms were in fact closer to the 2008 version than the ever-lengthier versions from 1974 through 2004 which contained a lot of language originally crafted by Rothbard and Evers.

    And while it is true that Ed Clark’s 1980 Presidential vote total was the LP’s highest ever (about 920,000 votes or 1.1%) it could certainly be argued that our best nationwide performance overall was in 2000 when our Congressional candidates received about 1.7 million votes. Using the Presidential race alone as a yardstick is very deceiving.

  102. LibertarianGirl

    @100 I wish Clark County was really growing but mostly it goes in waves. At the business meeting there are usually about 7-10 people , as they are incredibly boring.

  103. Erik Geib

    Anyone else love it when David chimes in? It’s basically impossible to argue with him regarding LP history.

    And, no, that’s not sarcasm.

  104. Carolyn Marbry

    124, it is rather cowardly, isn’t it?

    All these posts from SBC are missing the point completely. Barnes wasn’t accused of not helping to make the county meetings fun. Nobody’s arguing that point. But likewise, having fun meetings isn’t grounds to dismiss these very serious charges, either.

    Matt’s favorite game is misdirection, and he’s done a good job here. He’s managed to turn your attention away from his transgressions and toward “poor pitiful Matt, everybody’s out to get him,” which isn’t remotely true. Nobody’s out to get him. In fact, my partner and I went to L.A. to get that file with an eye toward EXONERATING him when we first heard about this. The facts shocked us, yes. His flagrant lies while he didn’t know we had those facts shocked us even more.

    Anyway, you seem to have lost sight of the forest for the trees, so let me refresh your memory. First of all, yes, he is a convicted repeat offender pedophile, but as I’ve said, that was over 20 years ago. I can’t forgive them — it’s not my place to forgive them since I was not one of the victims — but that’s old news, and since he hadn’t been caught reoffending, most of us would have gotten over it and said, well, whatever, he hasn’t reoffended, we’ll just keep him clear of any liability-creating situations — IF HE’D HAVE COME CLEAN RIGHT AWAY.

    He didn’t, though, and here’s where the real charges fall: HE LIED. He lied to the SBC leadership, he lied to the excomm and threatened to put anyone who looked into the situation on his “enemies list,” he lied to his own wife for 16 years. Of course, this last is not chargeable in terms of the party, but it certainly does enlighten those who have their eyes open about his character.

    He also gave illegal substances (alcohol and marijuana) to minors at party-related functions. While Libertarians are all for legalization, most of us do not condone giving these substances to minors and opening the party up to liability and lawsuits.

    He has apparently also threatened a lawsuit against the party which according to the by-laws is grounds in and of itself to remove him.

    So what the hell are you people defending here? “But the party meetings are fun!” Are you really that vapid?

  105. paulie Post author

    lg,

    LPCA Phrenologist // Jan 26, 2010 at 6:18 pm aka Matthew Barnes

    I won’t say who it is w/o permission, but it is not Barnes.

  106. LPCA Fact Checker

    Ms. Marbry, for the record, do you favor outlawing the provision of alcohol and marijuana to 17-year-olds? If so, do you also favor outlawing consensual sex between 17-year-olds and adults?

    If any of this unsubstantiated mud you’re slinging about Barnes is true, why wasn’t it included in the stated “cause” for his suspension? The Fact-Checker’s information is that the cause was simply this: “he stood for election and was elected to Executive Committee on false pretenses: He failed to disclose to the Convention multiple felony convictions of non-victimless crimes wherein he abused a position of authority and the abused were children.”

    The first rule of witch-hunting is: make up your mind about what the accused is prejudged to be guilty of.

    And the first rule of not sounding silly is: don’t agree with an anonymous commenter that anonymous commenting is “cowardly”.

    The Fact-Checker cannot state conclusively that Barnes has not posted here. If Barnes has, then he’s sounded more reasonable and civil than his accusers.

    Paulie, just how many free disconfirmations are you planning to hand out to people here trying to guess the identity of anonymous commenters? Is that really a precedent you want to set for IPR moderators?

  107. Brian Holtz

    @123, Rothbard’s venom is apparent in the very first paragraph, where he says the radicals’ victory “was smashing and complete. The Crane Machine is dead, finished, kaput. The Crane Machine, routed, fled the field, and hopefully will never be heard from again.” I’ve read all of Rothbard’s Libertarian Forum articles about the LP. They’re full of poison, spite, and venom. But since you agree with Rothbard’s faction, perhaps you think the end justifies the means.

    The Crane-managed Clark campaign was our best presidential effort, and the Cato Institute flourished while the LP languished after the Rothbardians drove out the Cato-ites. So if the Crane faction sought “control” — and which faction doesn’t seek “control”? — that sounds like it would have been a good thing.

  108. paulie Post author

    Jill,

    I was Libertarian Girl’s source from earlier today. I was muzzled until my resignation took place, which it now has. I am no longer on the Executive Committee, so I’m free to speak.

    I would be interested in hearing your perspective (or anyone else with more knowledge than what has been posted) == on or off the record, 415.690.6352.

    -p

  109. paulie Post author

    How this page evolved from some interesting fact-trading on USLP revenues to CALP inside baseball is something.

    IPR threads frequently meander. Feel free to respond or add to any of the previous comments on revenues etc.

    If there is a story here, could IPR or one of the commenters actually run one with some background so we know who is who and what this is all about?

    I’m researching it, but have mixed feelings about publishing anything. On one hand, IPR does get read by “real” journalists sometimes, and I don’t want to contribute to giving this more publicity. On the other, it is likely to metastasize anyway, and sunshine may be the best disinfectant.

    On one hand, just because it is likely to metastasize does not mean that I need to help trigger that. And also, I am really in dire need of cutting back here so IPR does not interfere with paying work. Only posting tonight due to insomnia and impending bad weather.

  110. paulie Post author

    It would be nice to have two separate articles and threads so that the two discussions here can be kept vaguely coherent.

    Perhaps that will happen soon.

    Perhaps.

    I’ve signed up quite a few people to write at IPR and can sign up more if readers are interested.

    If none of the what? Dozen, twenty? IPR writers care to write about it, and no one else wants to post articles, I don’t see it as my personal responsibility, especially when I should be putting all my efforts into making money while I have an opportunity, and my internet access is spotty and inconvenient.

    Sorry your thread got jacked, but it happens here quite a bit, and I don’t want the responsibility of telling people what comments they may post where (with rare exceptions: commercial spam, credible death threats, revealing others’ personal info without permission). Even if I did, I don’t have the time, and Trent wouldn’t allow me or anyone else to do so anyway.

    As I said to Ralph – the previous comments and original article are still open for discussion.

  111. paulie Post author

    The Libertarian Party’s biggest problem has always been its emphasis on winning elections.

    ? Please elaborate.

    That has resulted in the laughable candidacies of Ed “Low-tax liberal” Clark and the Barr-Root campaign of 2008.

    What was laughable about, for example, Clark’s run? And what do presidential campaigns (which everyone who is not delusional knows are not about winning the presidency – see http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/WasItWorthIt.htm ) have to do with some allegedly bad emphasis on winning?

    By being inside the Beltway, waging what amounts to intellectual war on the Ludwig von Mises Institute people over a disagreement Ed Crane had with Rothbard, Rockwell, and Ron Paul back in the 1980’s, and by alienating the Radicals the National Party has driven away many of its best thinkers and activists.

    Can you cite any example of LP National “waging what amounts to intellectual war on the Ludwig von Mises Institute people”?

    Both the Crane and Mises folks mostly left the LP in the 1980s.

    The LP has drifted towards statism and neo-conservativism. It needs to be more involved with hyperlocal activism and grassroots stuff. Don’t run for Congress in 2010, run for city council.

    You seem to be directly contradicting your initial statement here. Why run for city council rather than Congress, unless it is due to some exaggerated need to keep up a batting average at the expense of walking entirely away from the field of engaging issues that are outside the purview of city council, or grabbing the attention of voters who pay little or no attention to city council races?

    On the other hand you do have a point about hyperlocalism to some extent. The LP should learn – and teach affiliates – a lot about precinct organizing and the initial organizing methods that succeeded for the Costa Rican LP in its early growth phases.

  112. Bruce Cohen

    There are a lot of ways the LP can achieve progress. There is no one best way, and many very good ways.

    However, there seems to me that the witch hunters are the ones who call names, like ‘neocon’, which by the way, I am not, nor are most people this is used on.

    I don’t mind that Paulie is ‘wrong’ on Foreign Policy. I’m still friends with people who are ‘wrong’ on immigration. Please. It’s politics, not religion.

    Can’t we all just get elected?

  113. Robert Milnes

    Someone who knows @123, I am not for forced sterilization.
    Interesting how my interest in Positive Eugenics evidently got twisted into favoring forced sterilization though. Shows where that person is coming from.

  114. paulie Post author

    Any one else being monitored

    No, and neither are you.

    Akismet is an automated system which scans out most spam and occasionally makes mistakes. None of us control it.

    However, a few of us (mostly me) sometimes sit and spend a bunch of time pulling legit comments out of the spam file.

    I wish more IPR writers would do so, as I don’t have enough time.

    Oh, and you’re welcome.

  115. paulie Post author

    The Clark campaign was principled and eloquent.

    True. It was before my time but I recently read Clark’s campaign book. Well written, stands the test of time, and very little that I as an extremist libertarian could disagree with – contrary to expectations from prior reading of anti-Clark rants by Rothbard(ians).

    History lesson time:

    After first opposing the creation of the LP, Rothbard joined it by 1974 and quickly helped orchestrate a complete rewrite of its Platform, replacing a compact moderate minimal-government platform with an abolitionist one that became bloated with quasi-anarchist positions like personal secession, completely open borders, privatizing all streets, and immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws. Within a few years, the LP’s initial meteoric growth stopped in its tracks. Rothbard used vicious personal attacks to push out the LP’s moderate leaders, who in 1983 took refuge in the Cato Institute. In 1989, Rothbard himself abandoned the LP he had hollowed out, and by 1992 was supporting Pat Buchanan for President. His lieutenant Bill Evers, an anarchist who helped Rothbard rewrite the LP platform in the 1970’s, ended up as an adviser to George W. Bush, and worked in Iraq in the occupation government before taking a position in Bush’s federal Department of Education. The entire leadership of the Rothbard-era Radical Caucus — Rothbard, Evers, Garris, Raimondo, Costello, Hunter, Rockwell — abandoned the LP to back GOP candidates ranging from Ron Paul to Pat Buchanan.

    That’s rather one-sided, I think.

    IMO Ron Paul ’08 and associated movement has done a lot of good in bringing ideas of liberty greater prominence and especially a new generation of activists, despite sometime supporting some coercive social conservatism (for example on immigration).

    I would say LewRockwell.com – again w/ same qualification – does a great job of popularizing ideas of liberty, and mises.org has a wealth of detailed information.

    Antiwar.com is excellent. Even my dad reads it, and he’s a Chomskyite.

    Wouldn’t an ecumenical libertarian see some value in all this?

  116. paulie Post author

    Crane & Co dropped out of the Libertarian Party because they were disappointed with the vote totals for Ed Clark. They expected that the national advertising they bought with Dave Koch’s money would get Clark “3 or 4 million” votes and establish the LP as a viable third party.

    I though it was due to their loss in the presidential nomination of ’83?

    When Rothbard dropped out of the LP, it was because he was disappointed with Ron Paul’s vote total.

    Again a little different from what I’ve read – that it was due to losing a national chair battle in ’89.

    But then, I’ve only read about it while you were there, so maybe you have more on this?

  117. paulie Post author

    And while it is true that Ed Clark’s 1980 Presidential vote total was the LP’s highest ever (about 920,000 votes or 1.1%) it could certainly be argued that our best nationwide performance overall was in 2000 when our Congressional candidates received about 1.7 million votes. Using the Presidential race alone as a yardstick is very deceiving.

    Thanks, excellent point.

    I would add that in 2000, unless I am mistaken, we had more members than in 1980 (or now) and our fundraising was more diversified (IE not relying largely on the whims of a single major contributor) than in 1980.

    The extremely close 2000 Pres. election may have had a lot to do with those totals.

    By comparison, Buchanan, with decades of national prominence, numerous friends in the press corps, past victories in Republican primaries, high level white house jobs on his resume, millions of taxpayer dollars, a party which had at that time recently elected a sitting governor and in the previous presidential election come close to double digits — barely got more votes than Browne.

  118. paulie Post author

    Paulie, just how many free disconfirmations are you planning to hand out to people here trying to guess the identity of anonymous commenters? Is that really a precedent you want to set for IPR moderators?

    Huh? You already said it wasn’t Barnes.

    All I did was confirm it under my regular posting name.

  119. paulie Post author

    Rothbard’s venom is apparent in the very first paragraph, where he says the radicals’ victory “was smashing and complete. The Crane Machine is dead, finished, kaput. The Crane Machine, routed, fled the field, and hopefully will never be heard from again.” I’ve read all of Rothbard’s Libertarian Forum articles about the LP.

    I can’t claim to have read them all, but the prose is indeed rather dramatic and at times vicious. I say this as an anarchist radical extremist with what I hope is a sense of fair play.

    Cato Institute flourished while the LP languished after the Rothbardians drove out the Cato-ites

    A few million here, a few million$ there…

    So if the Crane faction sought “control” — and which faction doesn’t seek “control”?

    Rodney King/Taoist/Civility Caucus.

    My original vision for the Sunshine (aka Transparency) Caucus would also apply to itself, but unfortunately most other members disagreed – and the one who agreed with me on this the most sets a higher (re)bar for vitriol.

    that sounds like it would have been a good thing.

    That statement does not sound like ecumenical libertarianism to me.

  120. Nate

    “By comparison, Buchanan […] barely got more votes than Browne.”

    He also had help from the butterfly ballot and unsuspecting little old Jewish ladies in Florida.

  121. Born Again Non-Voter

    [Buchanan] also had help from the butterfly ballot and unsuspecting little old Jewish ladies in Florida.

    No, he didn’t.

    I’d read reports that Buchanan got about as many votes in that district (West Palm Beach?) in 1996 (when he wasn’t on a butterfly ballot) as in 2000.

    So the butterfly ballot was no big factor.

    Those little old ladies claiming to have voted for Buchanan might have been mistaken as to what they had done. (Instead of being mistaken in the voting booth, as they claimed.)

    And some of them could have been lying.

    And some of them could have been unsure as to what they had done, but claimed to have mis-voted, just to be on the safe side and help Gore.

    Hard numbers indicate that the butterfly ballot didn’t swing any votes.

    Opposing this are human memory and honesty, which are always fallible and/or suspect.

  122. Robert Capozzi

    pc 146, it depends on what you mean by “control” and “ecumenical.” For ex., I happen to believe that if the LP were largely populated with TAAALists with Hayekian/Taoist tendencies, war aversion, and green leaners, the LP would be its most successful. To my knowledge, that description only applies to me, although Steve Dasbach may also answer to that.

    I don’t seek control per se, that’d be rather silly. I realize that I have common cause with all lessarchists Ls, which unites all the major and minor schools of L-ism.

    I’m OK with the platform and SoP now, although there are statements in it that cause me to whince.

    Most important, while I happen to believe that my approach would yield optimal results, I also recognize that other approaches could be quite effective. And I’m humble enough to recognize that my calculation could be incorrect, that adjustments should likely be made as we go forward. In fact, it probably IS incorrect in some ways. After all, I’m a Randian Rothbardian in Recovery, so I’ve been “wrong” before! 😉 Who hasn’t been?

  123. LibertarianGirl

    FC_Ms. Marbry, for the record, do you favor outlawing the provision of alcohol and marijuana to 17-year-olds? If so, do you also favor outlawing consensual sex between 17-year-olds and adults?

    me_ Im not Carolyn , but Ill take that on .It isnt what she said but it’s a weak attempt to twist the conversation . I personally dont believe sex between 17 yr olds and adults should be outlawed , however I have a 17 yr old girl and any adult that comes near her is gonna have me to deal with , not the law , but me. And it doesn’t matter if we as Libs dont think teenagers should get in trouble for smokin weed or drinking. ITS AGAINST THE LAW AND IF WE GOT BUSTED PROVIDING IT TO MINORS , IT WOULD MEAN LAWSUITS , VOTES , EMBARRASSMENT , CRIMINAL CHARGES ETC ETC .

    If your not Barnes , who I think is SBCLP .Member , your sure his best buddy.

  124. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, the context of my LP history lesson was the LP. Not only have I always advocated ideological ecumenicism within the LP, but I’ve also always advocated strategic ecumenicism by saying that infiltrating the incumbent parties is a valid strategy for freedom-lovers. My complaint against the Rothbardians is not so much against what they did after leaving the LP, as it is against the non-ecumenicism they used to first hollow it out before abandoning it.

    Ideological ecumenicism doesn’t mean opposing control by any one faction. It means opposing control by any faction that isn’t ideologically ecumenical.

    You’re right about the proximate cause of Rothbard’s 1989 walkout; Gene’s version of it seems to be the sanitized/rationalized version.

    Our raw congressional vote totals in 2000 surely had more to do with the number of candidates we ran than with campaigning better than Clark did. Fielding larger slates is great, but let’s not kid ourselves.

  125. LPCA Fact Checker

    Hey, LG, I read in the paper that the trigger-happy conspiracy-nut LPNV Chair pulled a gun during a traffic stop and got himself shot for it.

    Isn’t spreading unsubstantiated rumors fun? Who needs facts and evidence?

    It’s a sad day when a Libertarian equates 1) consensual drugs and sex with 17-year-olds and 2) non-consensual molestation of 11-year-olds. The point of the LP is to challenge the ideology of the nanny state’s unjust laws, not defend it.

    Keep fantasizing that nobody would defend Barnes from expulsion except Barnes himself or his “best buddy”, if that’s what it takes to rationalize your unfair and unjust witch hunt. As far as is known to the Fact Checker, none of the five JudCom members are associates of Barnes or even LPSBD members. But they together have over 100 years of experience in the LP, and they reportedly needed only 10 minutes’ deliberation to reach a 5-0 decision to cancel this witch hunt. You’ve already demonstrated a willingness to spread false assumptions about me; what false things will you be saying about them?

    Where will it end, Debra? Why can’t Libertarians deal with each other just on the basis of facts and evidence? Why is that too much to ask?

  126. All your stone soup are belong to us

    I and my friend were playing this online game together. We were roommates at the time and he would play in one room and I in the other and we would torture my poor wife with our yelling back and forth our tactics. On some weekend mornings and some late nights the house would be filled with the various sounds found in the joy of battle and (too often) the woe of defeat. The game de jure was a player versus player game and we were working on earning battle points. We would ply our skill at killing other peoples pixelated avatars before they could kill ours in order to earn the options of better battle “gear”. But, the pool of opponents was lop-sided and we were at a disadvantage.

    In this game you were auto-associated in one of two sets of contestants and the set we were in had a very poor track record in this aspect of the game. The contests were played out in rich scenarios created for teams of fifteen. The game was very much just like capture the flag with all sorts of terrific viusal effects and complicated interplays of strategy, tactics and skill. If your team won the contest, you were awarded three points and if you lost you got one.

    There was an unfortunate aspect to the game theory used for pay-off. Losers still getting one point when they lost may have helped create more flow of people, but the people that it brought were often lazy about pursuing a win. The other side had more organizers than our split of the player pool did. We were losing time after time and it was frustrating. Far too many were content with the booby prize and too few were able to rally them for the perceived gains that the effort of working together entails. There was even a phenom of people joining these battles and then just leaving their computer doing nothing for their one point. It was called “leeching.”

    For a week I had been bugging my friend to try something whacky. You could communicate with your allies in the game through “chat” typing in a small box and sending messages that would scroll up as people spoke in turn. An interesting aspect of it was that the text was colored differently for one team member. The leader would have a brighter text in everyone’s chat box. On our side the people who would typically be in that role were most often absent, and when someone would put a foot forward, they were almost always ineffective; not for lack of trying of course. Everybody that tried definitely had their heart in it.

    I have to tell you something dreadful. The claque response to these neophyte leaders’ nearly perfect failure rate was brutal. When people think that no one knows who they are and they think that they will not be held responsible for their actions, their true ego comes out. Their tactics switch from being held to the ethics they think that their peers expect of them to rules that are run purely on internal decisions. You see the same effect in forums sometimes… But, I digress…

    I had learned a trick. It wasn’t a break in the rules. But the technique either wasn’t common knowledge or no one on our side ever cared to utilize it that I could tell. With very little effort I was able to place myself into a team leader position and have the special bright letters in chat that also brought with it the specter of ridicule. If you made the mistake of saying anything that might look like you thought you were above the rest in some way, the “flaming” would begin. You would be subject to the unyielding wind of every developmentally repressed blowhard that ever wielded a keyboard and mouse in the pursuit of binary “lewt.”

    I, however, was not content with eking my advancement up with the arduous foregone conclusion that I was playing to lose. That which is not forbidden is permissible in some sense and if you want to do anything, finding a leg up that disadvantages no-one else is no sin. Besides, I really dislike losing.

    “Look,” I shouted out to my friend, “when I say ‘who is a winner?’ I want you to say ‘I am.’ Phrase it any way you want, just be ready.”

    “What?” he shouted back with chuckling disbelief.

    “I’m going to say, ‘who is a winner?’ in chat, and I want you to answer me in the affirmative. Be creative. This will be fun. I promise you.”

    He didn’t buy it right away. Matter of fact I remember several game sessions of pleading, cajoling, and teasing. In the end I had to reminded him that he owed me money to get him to try it. I can be an evil bastard sometimes but this was going to be something I knew he would REALLY enjoy. We’d known each other for a long time and in the end he trusted me with my whacky plan and forgave me for my use of unfair leverage.

    I added one more rule. When I said “WIN”, he agreed to also type in “WIN” right behind me. Our training complete and armed with our mighty meme we set forth into battle with pixels… and thirteen other raw exposed egos.

    I got the leader position and put my plan into action.

    “I am not much of one to try and give orders,” I typed into the box. I let it hang on the newly assembled team of players who would never see each other again but needed to be able to act as a team for the next half hour or so.

    “I just need to know one thing…”

    “who here is a winner?”

    I gritted my teeth. Would he do it?

    “im a winner”

    I said nothing more to the team. When we went for the flag, me, my friend and a couple of others that spied us going into the enemy fortifications, infiltrated the base and played our respective specialized parts perfectly. When we took the flag and entered the game field between their home base and ours I did what I think a good leader should. I told my friend to be ready and I informed the team:

    “FC GY > C”

    Translated this meant that our “flag carrier” was coming out next to the other side’s “graveyard” and was going to go into ours via the “center entrance.” My first duty done to any who would listen, I then rallied.

    “WIN!!!”

    “win” answered back my friend. I noted the all lowercase answer and grumbled at him that next time to put some heart into it (capitals indicate shouting or excitement in chat). I got something snide back from him but didn’t pay any attention because right below his “win” was another. Someone caught on, and my friend was astounded. Besides himself really. I’ve heard him describe it as an epiphany.

    We won …and we continued to win.

    I do not know if we simply got better in our delivery or if the meme started to make its way through the cosmic subconscious, but after a little bit of time doing this over and over with a different set of teammates every time and drawing from a pool of seemingly tens of thousands or more, the ease at which we could get people to repeat “WIN” in that chat box improved quickly.

    We went from nearly always losing to winning significantly more often than not. The “WIN” meme carried us through our points gathering quite quickly and it worked in other arenas as well. You might think that this is a simple lesson, but there were some dynamics at work that many reading this may not realize beyond the obvious “positive thinking” aspect.

    Not once in that wholly anarchistic team setting did I presuppose authority over others. What gun could I use for motivation, my acerbic critiques sent anonymously to people I will never see again? I offered inspiration only to those who were motivated by success to get down to the business of capturing the flag. The few who were the kind that were prone to getting the job done joined on because they knew they were also around those who knew to put their shoulder to the wheel when it was time to move the wagon.

    Mealy mouthers were still common. Even putting up the most non-authoritarian rally cry possible is still too much leadership for some dysfunctional egos. For some people it seems that even an extension of general temporary alliance for a mutually beneficial cause is somehow a threat. The WIN meme being used would occasionally set some people off. The fortunate part is that the meme and the tactic for dealing with these people was the same. Not only was a call to positive action mightier than the poison frustrated people spewed but because there were only so many lines in the chat box: Anytime some schmuck would chime in with a disparaging remark in the team window, a series of “WIN” shouts from people would push the comments up and out of sight in seconds.

    For the seriously persistent sour mouthed shmendriks, I would pull out the meme that was killer of all dissent:

    “What is it you don’t like about winning?”

    Now, having told this story before I can tell you that sometimes, but only very rarely, I will get a surprising response. There are people that would call using a meme-like social device like that as manipulation. I find another thing common in their personalities and that is an ugly circle of victimizing and victimization. Some people are poison and they wear their malice sometimes on their sleeve and sometimes in their breast pocket. I also happen to know from personal experience that those cycles can be broken. It’s not as easy as repeating a winning script. You have to learn when your ego is exposed and how to handle that and how to comport yourself in your interactions with others. If you do not, you, yourself, be will never be safe from repeating the same abuse you once suffered in some twisted way.

    You have to be careful especially with the people you are close to and keep good friends around that have different approaches to seeing problems and who really know you and that you trust. The grip of ego takes you without you looking… by definition. You let your conscience slip away from controlling your actions and you are undone. EVERYBODY is prone to this disease of impropriety. Anger, jealousy, territorial-ism are universal and archetypical.

    In public your ego should never be splayed by your own hand, and if you let it be so, you owe those you emotionally urinated on an apology*. If you engage in harmful actions against people, there is a very natural affect you have far beyond you and your keyboard. The first is that you bring down everyone around you. The other is that you are easily undone by the most simple of fairness principles, “Mind your own business.” Know both your authority, responsibility and understand fully all involved in a matter before you stick in your nose into it much less your arm and leg.

    Not everyone working toward positive social change is a public person and if you take them from private to public without their consent, you have harmed them. If you shower them with accusations and stain you also hurt everyone around them and I submit that that if you do, motive and effects are entwined conscious or otherwise. To hurt someone by hurting everyone around until the crowd relents and hurts your target for you is an ethical transgression against all affected and beyond. The people fooled into blaming the person you hurt will remember your violence longer than the transferred aggression and their guilt or shame will be visited upon you.

    If you use a public medium for fraud, including extortion, of even if it seems like you are, you are bordering on not only the actionable but also the criminal. If you do so to at the expense of people that once gave you their trust, you may wind up in the ninth circle of hell eating ice cubes… alone… for eternity. Treachery is a hard path to return from.

    This platform fight seems a lot like that. 30 years of infighting seems like a VERY long time. I would suggest professional negotiators for the factions and leadership on each side find more constructive ways to direct their people than internal sabotage. But that is a tough nut to crack. I personally think that new blood and scale of membership is the only answer and you cant get that by whacking on your allies nor by creating divisive public messes for entertainment.

    I know in a free society of ethical people that leadership is really influence. That to use the gun, the threat of the gun, or in the worst scenario involving organized thugs with guns you are dire bounds and this should only be done in the gravest of circumstance. When others lend their ears to my advice (solicited or otherwise), I owe them that which I perceive will bring them the greatest success not an expectation of obedience. Obedience I can pay for. Friends and allies I can only earn.

    *I hope my wife and roommate forgive my using them in what might rightly be called my own urination. I think they know me well enough that when I let it rip like that, I REALLY had to go.

  127. LibertarianGirl

    Hey, LG, I read in the paper that the trigger-happy conspiracy-nut LPNV Chair pulled a gun during a traffic stop and got himself shot for it.

    me_ LOL , thats not entirely untrue. he is trigger happy , he teaches self defense , he is a conspiracy nut – he did not pull a gun , he did get shot . but HE has a lawsuit and will get paid, paid paid!

    Isn’t spreading unsubstantiated rumors fun? Who needs facts and evidence?

    me_what rumors am I spreading? I am making guesses to identities of people posting here.I have spread no rumors about Barnes , only truths and as for facts and evidence , I have the file on him , thats all the facts and evidence I need.

    It’s a sad day when a Libertarian equates 1) consensual drugs and sex with 17-year-olds and 2) non-consensual molestation of 11-year-olds. The point of the LP is to challenge the ideology of the nanny state’s unjust laws, not defend it.

    i didnt say I agree with the laws , I dont , but some of them can get us in alot of trouble if we dont follow them while fighting to change them . giving drugs to teenagers is one of them . are you saying you think its ok to give minors drugs and alcohol at Party event and that it wouldn’t reflect badly on us if we got caught??

    Keep fantasizing that nobody would defend Barnes from expulsion except Barnes himself or his “best buddy”, if that’s what it takes to rationalize your unfair and unjust witch hunt.

    me_ i never said expulsion . I don’t think he should be in any officer position . Its really , really bad PR.and I aint hunting witches , Im hunting child molesters , and I guess as a mother and woman it just bothers me more than you .

    As far as is known to the Fact Checker, none of the five JudCom members are associates of Barnes or even LPSBD members. But they together have over 100 years of experience in the LP, and they reportedly needed only 10 minutes’ deliberation to reach a 5-0 decision to cancel this witch hunt. You’ve already demonstrated a willingness to spread false assumptions about me; what false things will you be saying about them?

    no false things , only one truth , Hinkle had my vote for Chair , he doesnt anymore.

    Where will it end, Debra? Why can’t Libertarians deal with each other just on the basis of facts and evidence? Why is that too much to ask?

  128. LibertarianGirl

    ** same post as just before with name tag edits for easier comprehension , sorry***

    FC_Hey, LG, I read in the paper that the trigger-happy conspiracy-nut LPNV Chair pulled a gun during a traffic stop and got himself shot for it.

    me_ LOL , thats not entirely untrue. he is trigger happy , he teaches self defense , he is a conspiracy nut – he did not pull a gun , he did get shot . but HE has a lawsuit and will get paid, paid paid!

    FC_Isn’t spreading unsubstantiated rumors fun? Who needs facts and evidence?

    me_what rumors am I spreading? I am making guesses to identities of people posting here.I have spread no rumors about Barnes , only truths and as for facts and evidence , I have the file on him , thats all the facts and evidence I need.

    FC_It’s a sad day when a Libertarian equates 1) consensual drugs and sex with 17-year-olds and 2) non-consensual molestation of 11-year-olds. The point of the LP is to challenge the ideology of the nanny state’s unjust laws, not defend it.

    me_i didnt say I agree with the laws , I dont , but some of them can get us in alot of trouble if we dont follow them while fighting to change them . giving drugs to teenagers is one of them . are you saying you think its ok to give minors drugs and alcohol at Party event and that it wouldn’t reflect badly on us if we got caught??

    FC_Keep fantasizing that nobody would defend Barnes from expulsion except Barnes himself or his “best buddy”, if that’s what it takes to rationalize your unfair and unjust witch hunt.

    me_ i never said expulsion . I don’t think he should be in any officer position . Its really , really bad PR.and I aint hunting witches , Im hunting child molesters , and I guess as a mother and woman it just bothers me more than you .

    FC_As far as is known to the Fact Checker, none of the five JudCom members are associates of Barnes or even LPSBD members. But they together have over 100 years of experience in the LP, and they reportedly needed only 10 minutes’ deliberation to reach a 5-0 decision to cancel this witch hunt. You’ve already demonstrated a willingness to spread false assumptions about me; what false things will you be saying about them?

    me_no false things , only one truth , Hinkle had my vote for Chair , he doesnt anymore.

  129. Nate

    “I’d read reports that Buchanan got about as many votes in that district (West Palm Beach?) in 1996 (when he wasn’t on a butterfly ballot) as in 2000.”

    That would be pretty impressive, as I don’t believe he was on the ballot at all in 1996. And yes, I believe it was West Palm Beach.

    Buchanan himself said a lot of those votes were probably not meant to be for him. I’m running late, but I’ll see if I can find the quote on Monday.

  130. A big decision

    Sex is a huge decision. It can be life threatening, and life changing. It is not a decision for minor children, despite the appalling laxity of parenthood in our society.

  131. LPCA Fact-Checker

    LG, there is an unsubstantiated claim above that Barnes “gave alcohol and marijuana to minors at party-related functions”. I didn’t say the claim was yours, I just asked you if it’s fun to see such unsubstantiated claims discussed as if they were facts.

    If you’re against expelling Barnes, then I don’t understand your complaint against Hinkle/JudCom, because all they did was overturn the expulsion. I’ll keep asking until one of the brave witch-hunters has the courage to answer: why shouldn’t the LPSBD be disaffiliated for electing Barnes to county office after they knew his record?

    It’s great that you’re a parent, but I bet I’ve been a parent more times over than you have. How dare you assume that child molestation bothers you more “as a woman” than it bothers a parent who might not be a woman? Do you have any idea how much such a comment sets back the cause of de-stereotyping women in the LP?

    The Fact Checker is not omniscient, and still has no first-hand knowledge of any friendships between Barnes and the JudCom. How about applying your own fact-checking prowess to Ms. Marbry’s scandalous but unsubstantiated allegations — allegations that were conveniently omitted from the “cause” filed against him? Or would that spoil your “hunt”?

  132. Taking ball and going home.

    I’m tired of the internal fighting that I see in pro-liberty organizations. I think that is the first obstacle in the way or organizations like the LP or LPCA from growing and displacing another party.

    I can see the points of view on both sides in the Matthew Barnes case. I think those that were against him having a leadership position had a mix a reasons.

    First there were those that had personal vendettas against him (which were obvious) and tainted any argument they made.

    Then there were those who were using the issue to polarize groups and push forward their own personal agendas. Some of those also being those with vendettas.

    And lastly you have the minority of those against him that were actually genuinely concerned about the potential welfare of others or other potential ramifications.

    I think those that were against him and pulled his membership and by extension leadership position did so in the wrong manner.

    I can see the desire to protect the LPCA and LP by putting pressure and getting him to resign a leadership position. Members with in the party demonstrated how they could inform outside sources and make an issue of it. In the case of his membership the better venue would have been the convention. Since it appeared the primary reason was his criminal history and all other reasons were very tenuous I can’t see how people can expect the suspension to have stood. It was a “Hail Mary” shot on their part and quiting based on that not happening is ridiculous. If you are going to set a precedent of not allowing individuals with a criminal history of this manner to not be able to be members of the CALP and by extension limit their involvement in the political process, this needs to be a decision of all the members of the CALP. If the people concerned truly believe that limitation should be in place it is ridiculous that they quit before the convention and “take their ball and go home”. It’s a childish response.

    I have seen this same response to other issues that have occurred in the CALP and LP. The people that normally lost in those cases were using negative ways or breaking down others, twisting statements and other negative politicking. I submit they might have been more successful using a positive coalition building and persuasive discussion tactic.

    These divisive policy’s and quiting doesn’t garner support for a position and has been shown to be a failing tactic for the most part with in the LP recently. In the long run it also doesn’t build up the organization but instead makes growth stagnant.

    If you believe any policy with in the LP should change persuade and recruit others and build up your cause as opposed to the nuclear warfare to destruct each side.

    /rant

  133. LibertarianGirl

    BH__LG, there is an unsubstantiated claim above that Barnes “gave alcohol and marijuana to minors at party-related functions”. I didn’t say the claim was yours, I just asked you if it’s fun to see such unsubstantiated claims discussed as if they were facts.

    me_ i trust Carolyn wouldnt lie , plus noones denying or saying its a lie so….. im sure there isnt photo’s so… are you calling Carolyn a liar ?

    It’s great that you’re a parent, but I bet I’ve been a parent more times over than you have. How dare you assume that child molestation bothers you more “as a woman” than it bothers a parent who might not be a woman? Do you have any idea how much such a comment sets back the cause of de-stereotyping women in the LP?

    alrighty , you can have that one , maybe it just bothers ME more than YOU.

    The Fact Checker is not omniscient, and still has no first-hand knowledge of any friendships between Barnes and the JudCom. How about applying your own fact-checking prowess to Ms. Marbry’s scandalous but unsubstantiated allegations — allegations that were conveniently omitted from the “cause” filed against him? Or would that spoil your “hunt”?

    I trust Carolyn as a source, do I have proof , no, do you have proof she is lying??

  134. LPCA Fact-Checker

    LG, if you think that the only way a rumor can be false/inaccurate is for everyone who repeats it to be lying, then that explains everything I hadn’t understood about your defense of this attempted purge.

    P.S. Holtz is surely not the only one in the LPCA who likes facts to be checked. If you’re fishing for more (dis)confirmations about my identity, I’ll leave those to Paulie.

  135. paulie Post author

    Nope, no more dis/confirmations.

    My only confirmation was what you yourself said, that you know Phrenominologist is not Barnes.

  136. Michael H.Wilson

    How about taking a break from the bicker and write your congress critters today and tell them to bring the troops home from abroad. That’ll save the American taxpayers a chunk of change.

    Just do it!

  137. LPCA Fact-Checker

    Doh! Thanks for revealing that LPCA Fact-Checker == LPCA Phrenologist.

    In the future, be advised that the easiest way not to leak information is to not know it. 😉

  138. paulie Post author

    Doh! Thanks for revealing that LPCA Fact-Checker == LPCA Phrenologist.

    In the future, be advised that the easiest way not to leak information is to not know it.

    Once again – I did not leak anything.

    Above, you said that you happen o know that phrenologist is not Barnes. Comment 74.

    As for whether you are Phrenologist or not – I haven’t said anything about that, and had no plans to. So if there was such a leak, it wasn’t by me.

  139. Erik Geib

    Robert Capozzi,

    “if the LP were largely populated with TAAALists with Hayekian/Taoist tendencies, war aversion, and green leaners, the LP would be its most successful. To my knowledge, that description only applies to me, although Steve Dasbach may also answer to that.”

    You can more or less count me in that group as well.

  140. paulie Post author

    pc 146, it depends on what you mean by “control” and “ecumenical.” For ex., I happen to believe that if the LP were largely populated with TAAALists with Hayekian/Taoist tendencies, war aversion, and green leaners, the LP would be its most successful. To my knowledge, that description only applies to me, although Steve Dasbach may also answer to that.

    I’m probably another one.

    I don’t seek control per se, that’d be rather silly.

    My point exactly. The King Caucus is not seeking control, contrary to the claim I was addressing that all factions are seeking control in the same sense as the Crane Machine, Kochtopus, or whatever you want to call it.

    Most important, while I happen to believe that my approach would yield optimal results, I also recognize that other approaches could be quite effective. And I’m humble enough to recognize that my calculation could be incorrect, that adjustments should likely be made as we go forward. In fact, it probably IS incorrect in some ways. After all, I’m a Randian Rothbardian in Recovery, so I’ve been “wrong” before! Who hasn’t been?

    I’ve certainly been wrong — everything from big government leftist to anarcho-nihilist to angrytarian to cynical outlaw ends-justify-means egoist. So I may be wrong now.

  141. paulie Post author

    Ideological ecumenicism doesn’t mean opposing control by any one faction. It means opposing control by any faction that isn’t ideologically ecumenical.

    Since Rothbardians and… Crainians(?) were in a major pissing match by ’83, I doubt Crane machine control would have been ecumenical towards Rothbardians.

    Our raw congressional vote totals in 2000 surely had more to do with the number of candidates we ran than with campaigning better than Clark did. Fielding larger slates is great, but let’s not kid ourselves.

    But that’s kind of my point – in 2000, we had more candidates, more small/medium contributors, more members, etc., than in ’80, so overall I think we made a better effort that year. In ’80, we had top-down control by a wealthy family, and a good presidential candidate, but relatively little else when compared with 2000.

  142. paulie Post author

    That would be pretty impressive, as I don’t believe he was on the ballot at all in 1996

    repub primaries i think…apples and oranges comparison if so.

  143. LPCA Fact-Checker

    Paulie, when a moderator confirms a previously-unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous poster about the identity of another anonymous poster, that leaks out information. An unsubstantiated claim is one piece of information, and confirmation of it is another.

    No harm no foul, but if we’re going to endure the pain of anonymous trollers, let’s try harder to preserve the fun parts of anonymity. If an anonmous poster wants or needs any (dis)confirmation, let them ask for it.

    LG, Holtz can speak for himelf, but as for Fact-Checker, you cannot quote him saying previously either that you are an embarrassment or that Barnes isn’t an embarrasment.

    However, Fact-Checker will say that he is ashamed of much of the venom and unsubstantiated mud-slinging employed by Libertarians above to justify purging a member — especially when so much of the mud isn’t even part of the cause which allegedly justified the purge.

  144. Erik Geib

    Also, according to Salon, Buchanan received 7,000 votes in Palm Beach County in the GOP primary in ’96.

    Granted, the same article says Buchanan’s Florida 2000 campaign manager expected only 1,000 or so votes at best, but take it for what it’s worth.

  145. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, I repeat: “ecumenical toward Rothbardians” is a syntax error given how I use the term “ecumenical”. I’ve seen zero evidence that the Craniacs weren’t ecumenical toward Rothbardianism — i.e., that they used the Party’s machinery to prevent principled libertarians from espousing anarchism. By contrast, Rothbard in his writings is loud and proud about using the Party’s machinery to prevent principled libertarians from espousing minarchism. In all of Rothbard’s voluminous attacks on the “Crane Machine”, I don’t remember a single complaint that the Craniacs did anything similar.

  146. Robert Capozzi

    eg and pc, excellent! 4 TAAALists and growing.

    pc, it’s true that the Crane Machine tended to be control oriented, Rothbard was just vicious and personal. I was editor for awhile for the Craniac response newsletter called UPdate, and the level of dialog was just way more civil coming from Crane and crew.

    It’s all ancient history, of course, but we seem to be repeating it over and over again. I’d like to break the cycle this time!

  147. paulie Post author

    Paulie, when a moderator confirms a previously-unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous poster about the identity of another anonymous poster, that leaks out information. An unsubstantiated claim is one piece of information, and confirmation of it is another.

    No harm no foul, but if we’re going to endure the pain of anonymous trollers, let’s try harder to preserve the fun parts of anonymity. If an anonmous poster wants or needs any (dis)confirmation, let them ask for it.

    Fair enough, will do. And my apologies.

    Also, according to Salon, Buchanan received 7,000 votes in Palm Beach County in the GOP primary in ‘96.

    Granted, the same article says Buchanan’s Florida 2000 campaign manager expected only 1,000 or so votes at best, but take it for what it’s worth.

    As I said – apples and oranges. It’s not realistic to expect everyone who voted for Buchanan in the primaries to vote for him as a Reform candidate, and that did not happen in other states/counties.

    Btw, if you can’t figure out this ballot, you’re an idiot.

    Or maybe just old?

    I’ve seen zero evidence that the Craniacs weren’t ecumenical toward Rothbardianism — i.e., that they used the Party’s machinery to prevent principled libertarians from espousing anarchism.

    It was just a hunch, and while I am somewhat interested, I’m not interested enough to try to dig for evidence to back it. So, point for Brian unless and until I happen to come across some.

  148. EVG

    I refuse to believe age is an excuse for not being able to figure out that ballot. Hell, a 1st grader could figure out that ballot. This wasn’t rocket science we were asking them to do, it was the simple ability to follow an arrow to a hole.

  149. mdh

    I would say that if a pedophile were to join the LPWV, I would haul them out into the street and beat them to death just as I would should I come across such a person in any other venue.

    You gotta watch out for us libertarians. We’re ornery fuckers.

  150. Brian Holtz

    Matt Harris, you pick up the LPWV’s mail in Star City, right? Here’s the nearest offender to you, right in that town, at 1341 Bitonti St., apartment A4: http://www.wvstatepolice.com/sexoff/WebDetails_r07.cfm?OffenderID=278845

    His name is Leonard D. Keith, and he was convicted of “1st Degree Sexual Abuse and Sexual Abuse by a Parent, Guardian or Custodian”. Are you going to kill him if you see him? Is that really the sort of announcement we want an LP state chair to be make in public?

    Here is his picture, so you can be on the lookout for him.

  151. paulie Post author

    I refuse to believe age is an excuse for not being able to figure out that ballot. Hell, a 1st grader could figure out that ballot. This wasn’t rocket science we were asking them to do, it was the simple ability to follow an arrow to a hole.

    Not everyone noticed or paid attention to the arrows. Some saw the Republican and Democratic nominees in the top two spots and assumed they corresponded with the top two holes. It is an understandable mistake for someone who may have poor vision and perhaps early stage altzheimer’s, among other things.

  152. paulie Post author

    Try this: look at your first image above and only look at the left side of it, as many probably did. Pretend you don’t know the right half exists. The arrows seem to be meaningless.

  153. Gene Trosper

    Just received this from a source in the LPCA, since I already resigned do to Matthew Barnes. I am posting it here exactly as I received it in my email.
    *****

    For Immediate Release:

    On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of California issued a ruling that overturned the suspension of a member by a vote of 5-0. While Robert’s Rules of Order prevents the Judicial Committee from revealing the details of the proceedings, the Judicial Committee finds that it may comment on certain inaccurate information circulating about this case. The suspension of the member by the Executive Committee was not for the commission of any crime, the Judicial Committee was not asked to render a decision that depended on the determination of whether or not the member had committed any crime, and the statements of the causes for suspension that were submitted to the Judicial Committee did not pertain to any such crime.

    The Judicial Committee recognizes that the Executive Committee acted within the authority granted to it by the Party Bylaws to vote to suspend a member for a specific cause or causes. The member also acted within the Bylaws by appealing the suspension to the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee met the time lines delineated by the Bylaws and held an extensive hearing during which both parties had the opportunity to present their cases and call witnesses. Following the hearing, the Judicial Committee carefully reviewed the statement of the causes, and the evidence and arguments, which had been submitted to it. The Judicial Committee concluded that neither the Executive Committee nor the member presented their respective cases effectively. The Executive Committee not having met the burden of proof on the causes as stated, and the Judicial Committee not being empowered nor inclined to extend or substitute for the stated causes, the Judicial Committee accordingly rendered a decision to overturn the suspension and restore the individual’s membership as provided for under Section 6 of Bylaw 5.

    Privacy considerations which are described in Robert’s Rules of Order, as well as past precedents from membership suspensions by the Executive Committee, prevent the members of the Judiciary Committee from making any more specific comments with regard to this case. Individual members of the Judicial Committee are of course always free (as is any member of the Party) to advocate for improvements in such things as declarations of Party membership requirements and the quality of administrative procedures, but such advocacy should not be assumed to reflect on the merits of this individual case.
    The Judicial Committee has reviewed and affirmed its decision of Tuesday, January 26, 2010.

    -END-

    Yours in liberty…………Mark Hinkle,
    LPC Judicial Committee Chair

  154. Gene Trosper

    Sometimes I wish there was an edit function for posts. “Due to”, rather. Ah well!

  155. paulie Post author

    If you are willing to post news articles at IPR, not just comment, you will also be able to retro-edit your comments.

  156. california libertarian

    Lawrence, what is your position on the Matthew Barnes situation? Do you support reinstating his membership? What will you say to the media if contacted?

  157. Jill Pyeatt

    Somewhere, someone needs to make a list of activists leaving because of Barnes. I’ll start it:

    Gene Trosper
    Zander Collier
    Jill Pyeatt
    Lidia Seebeck

    This is who I know of as of now.

    I’ll continue to post more names as I hear them , since there will undoubtedly be more.

    I sure hope Barnes is worth all of us.

  158. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill,

    Based on the statements I’ve seen from some of the names you list, none of them seem to be leaving because of Barnes.

    Rather they seem to be leaving because they didn’t get their way on Barnes.

    There’s a difference.

    Of course, it’s hard to tell from outside, since both the suspension proceedings and the appeal appear to have been conducted in camera and publicly recorded in insufficient detail to make heads or tails of.

    If there’s a story for public consumption here at all, I’d say that story is “LPCA conducts purges, rehabilitations in secret.”

  159. paulie Post author

    George Phillies has requested that discussions of Mr. Barnes, his suspension and reinstatement be taken somewhere other than the discussion of his article.

    There are numerous other IPR threads available to be jacked for this purpose. In comments 135 and 136 above, I explain why this has not become its own IPR story – at least yet.

    Please respect Dr. Phillies’ request on this. This is a request, not a mandate, but all your cooperation would be appreciated.

  160. Jill Pyeatt

    Thomas: that’s a fair distinction.

    paulie and Dr Phillies: No problem with discontinuing discussion on this thread. That does appear appropriate. I’ve said what I wanted to say, anyway.

  161. Brian Holtz

    Tom has it exactly right. Jill, what is the minimum number of members who need to hold their own membership hostage before the Party should cave in to their demands that somebody be purged?

    Like so many scenes in LP-internal politics, this one brings to mind a Monty Python reference:

    My counsel to Barnes opponents remains: a little less hysteria, and a little more evidence. The allegations that have been made against Barnes beyond his formal suspension cause sound pretty serious. The choice apparently was between 1) documenting those extra allegations and re-suspending him, or 2) quitting. What does taking option 2 tell us about the viability of option 1?

  162. All your stone soup are belong to us

    Mrs. Pyeatt,

    If you are going to question worth. Perhaps you should disclose both side of the equation.

    Lets start with meeting attendance and then move to membership recruiting.

    You tally all of the meetings that all of those people listed had attended local and state and sum them up then compare it to Barnes alone.

    Then list all the new members Barnes brought to your local area alone in the last year against all the new members you have had in the last 5 years otherwise.

    Then lets count the number of times Matthew Barnes has stood outside of Panera Bread in Pasadena calling you and other officers wondering where you were for scheduled meetings because he had a half dozen new people and members waiting.

    Then lets tally personal expense. You have an idea how much Barnes spent on supporting the party just in your area (which is not his associated county). Making calls to remind people, arranging speakers, etc. How does that compare to you and the others you listed in sum?

    I also happen to know that despite all your public protestations about how discontrite Mr. Barnes is. I know that in September he offered to talk to you more at length privately. Did you ever take him up on that?

    This isn’t church Jill. Mr. Barnes does not have to publicly admit his 25 year-old sins for you.

    As I witnessed it you got the one and only answer a person like you should ever be trusted with: “None of your business” and apparently his decision to limit your access to his private life was wise.

    I think you voted to expel him because you didn’t want to have to bother with all the new members Barnes brought.

    I also think that the only reason Barnes is a “problem” is because state leadership (you) tried to use him just as you are using him now.

  163. Erik Geib

    Could we at least start a thread / news item that says something like:

    “There is a storm brewing in the LPCA over the status of member Matthew Barnes. Barnes went before ___ and the handling of the issue and the results of ___’s verdict has many members weighing their futures with the party.”

    ?

    This way we can all respect the request of Dr. Phillies. ?

  164. All your stone soup are belong to us

    Jill,

    @199 was inappropriate for public and mean. I am sorry.

  165. pedo patrol

    I want to thank David Nolan for creating an open and tolerant party where people such as myself can feel safe that knowing our sexuality will be supported and protected, even in the face of limited opposition by straight laced fanatics. I support Matt Barnes and hope all man-boy love advocates support him as well. Thank you, Mr. Nolan! We don’t know what we would do without the Libertarian Party! We are so happy to have your support!

  166. Brian Holtz

    PP, you can’t name a single LPCA member who has expressed “support” for Barnes’s pedophilia. The only thing being “protected” about Barnes is his right to be judged on the actual evidence for the cause claimed to justify his expulsion.

    I’ll make this bet about Nolan: if he’s read this far, or if he’s talked to Mark Hinkle, then he’s surely changed his provisional judgment @70 that the LPCA JudCom “screwed up badly here”.

    The JudCom statement is far too cryptic to just publish as-is, and I’m not going to be the first alternative-party activist who adds details of this story to the Google News index and archive. If George Phillies issues a statement on this matter that is less cryptic/elliptical than the JudCom’s, I’m sure some reporter here will cover it.

  167. Don Lake .......... Amen

    Brian Holtz // Jan 29, 2010:
    “can’t name a single LPCA member who has expressed “support” for Barnes’s pedophilia. The only thing being “protected” about Barnes is his right to be judged on the actual evidence for the cause claimed to justify his expulsion.
    I’ll make this bet about Nolan: if he’s read this far, or if he’s talked to Mark Hinkle, then he’s surely changed his provisional judgment @70 that the LPCA JudCom “screwed up badly here”.

    Perception, perception, perception! The LP will be known as the ‘Loonie Perverts’ for decades to come. Folks still connect the Deform Party/ Reform Party with lying, thieving Bible Beaters Patrick and [sister] Bay Buchanan! And that $12.5 M strong box robbery has done and gone for a decade!

  168. Alan Pyeatt

    Dr. Phillies, I would like to personally apologize to you that your thread was hijacked over a matter in California (even though I had nothing to do with said hijacking), especially when there is a separate thread dedicated to this issue at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/california-lp-judicial-committee-overturns-members-suspension-on-appeal/.

    Don’t be surprised if this issue continues to plague the movement nationwide, although many of us acted to prevent this from happening.

    At this point, I don’t think there is any need to provide further evidence for your original thesis, and unless we can reverse the current implosion in California, it looks like things may accelerate.

    Good luck in your efforts to steer the “Good Ship Liberty” out of the shoals and back on course.

  169. paulie Post author

    It’s now been covered. I detailed why I did not do so earlier in 135 and 136.

    So now that Barnes matter has its own thread, anyone want to get back to the original discussion?

  170. Brian Holtz

    Don’t all start responding at once. Take turns.

    I’ll start: Dr. Phillies’s article lists several people who he says “represent a positive commitment for change in our Party, and merit your support”. One of them says in this very thread that a Party officer “gave illegal substances (alcohol and marijuana) to minors at party-related functions”, and she later clarified that she “witnessed this on countless occasions”. Should such a person be entrusted with Party office in the absence of any evidence that she didn’t immediately take effective action to limit the Party’s liability from these (alleged) incidents?

    Dr. Phillies is usually so voluble about alleged impropriety among (would-be) LP officers and candidates, so I’ll be curious how/whether he addresses this question.

  171. Brian Holtz

    My subtext here of course is: responsible Party leaders cannot go around slinging mud at other Party leaders/members unless their evidence is as airtight as their charges are serious. In George’s defense, he almost always is willing and able to back up his charges against fellow Libertarians with detailed evidence. I wish some of the people he endorses above would learn from his example.

  172. Look at the shiney monkey

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/george-phillies-our-good-ship-liberty-needs-to-change-course/comment-page-4/#comment-155161

    He also gave illegal substances (alcohol and marijuana) to minors at party-related functions. While Libertarians are all for legalization, most of us do not condone giving these substances to minors and opening the party up to liability and lawsuits.

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/california-lp-judicial-committee-overturns-members-suspension-on-appeal/comment-page-6/#comment-155791

    Especially not with the lack of judgment he showed in giving alcohol and marijuana to underage persons (substantiated ? I witnessed this myself on countless occasions).

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/california-lp-judicial-committee-overturns-members-suspension-on-appeal/comment-page-6/#comment-155864

    Countless occasions means over the course of a year, at least once a week and sometimes twice a week when I was at his house.

    The story seems to drift from “Party Functions” to someone’s home.

    Then we learn that Ms. Marbry was at this residence several times a week for a year.

    One has to ask. Were these people family?

    Did Ms. Marbry do any of the providing of this alcohol?

    Just what is Ms. Marbry trying to entangle the party into with her own “mischaracterizations” and “misdirections”?

    Has St. George become the dragon?

  173. Brian Holtz

    While the use of links and quotes here is a welcome change from the usual practice on IPR, there’s zero basis here to ask whether Ms. Marbry did any of the alleged providing of alcohol.

  174. Nate

    It’s Monday and here’s the quote:

    Appearing on The Today Show, Buchanan said:
    “ When I took one look at that ballot on Election Night. . . it’s very easy for me to see how someone could have voted for me in the belief they voted for Al Gore.[24] ”

    Found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#1996_presidential_primaries

    Also, keep in mind that the arrows *could* align with the holes, but the pages were often somewhat too high/low, leading to arrows pointing at nothing.

Leave a Reply

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