The Libertarian Party of San Francisco passed resolutions this month denouncing recent immigration policies enacted by the Trump administration, as well as the decision by former Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle to award President Donald Trump an honorary lifetime membership with the party.
According to a statement from the party published on social media, both resolutions were adopted by those in attendance at the party’s February 8 meeting. The party did not specify how many members attended, only noting that the resolutions were unanimously approved. The statement also reiterated that only Libertarian Party of California members affiliated with the San Francisco party are allowed to vote on internal party business.
The full text of the resolutions, as published by the party on social media, is presented below:
Resolution Against Trump’s Honorary Lifetime Membership
“Be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco denounces the honorary Lifetime Membership awarded to President Trump by the former LNC Chair, a decision we do not believe she had the authority to execute.”Resolution Against Trump’s Mass Deportations
“Be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco denounces President Trump’s mass deportation crack downs, including separation of parents and children, as inhumane and antithetical to Liberty.”
Last month, former LNC Chair Angela McArdle announced her resignation and, in a farewell address posted on X, granted Trump an honorary lifetime membership in the party as one of her final directives. She cited his engagement with party leadership and his promise to pardon Ross Ulbricht as reasons for her support. McArdle emphasized then that this honorary membership does not confer voting rights or require adherence to the party’s Non-Aggression Principle.
Following McArdle’s departure, newly elected LNC Chair Steven Nekhaila ruled Trump’s honorary membership “fictitious” and unsupported by party bylaws in a motion posted to the party’s internal list, declaring it “null and void.” However, on February 2, McArdle asserted that the membership had been purchased and was therefore irrevocable. “Our gift to him is secure and we are grateful for the libertarian advances made in this administration,” she added.
Jimmy Carter’s fiscal policies weren’t bad — they were actually pretty sound and slowed the rate of federal spending (government growth) — but they weren’t enough to offset the Federal Reserve’s contractionary monetary policies that led to a weakening of the U.S. dollar, runaway inflation, exorbitantly high interest rates and high unemployment, thereby dooming his Presidency. Those are facts.
Wall Street, as always, achieved what it wanted — Reagan’s tax cuts for the wealthy.
I don’t regret my primary votes either: Wallace in 1972, Reagan 1976-84, Pat Robertson in 1988, Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996, Gary Bauer in 2000, none in 2004, Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, Donald Trump since 2016.
I usually vote Republican in the primaries (1972 would be the exception) but Reagan and Trump are the only Republicans I’ve supported for President in the general election, not counting Goldwater when I was way too young to vote. In other years I ended up backing minor party and independent candidates for President in the general election – Wallace, Schmitz, Maddox, Paul, Perot, Buchanan, Barr, Goode. I also supported Wallace, Buchanan and Ron Paul in the primaries. I don’t regret any of those votes.
@Darcy G. Richardson
People don’t choose what to believe, but believe what they are convinced or – preferably – know to be true.
So yes, my entire impression of Reagan does lead me to believe Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard over you – in this, at least.
But that’s not because I choose what to believe, but rather because – in my opinion – they made strong cases and brought compelling arguments consistent with independent sources, and – so far, in my opinion – you have not.
Why do YOU believe the Federal Reserve was acting against Carter to undermine him, rather than following his own poor policy decisions?
Why was Reagan able to wrangle the fed back in line – at least, relatively – but Carter somehow was not – nor were their predecessors and successors?
What makes you think that Reaganomics only benefited the wealthy and that its trickle-down effect wasn’t responsible for the prosperity of high tech industries in the ’80s and of everyone else by the ’90s?
And when did Carter ever give any sign of caring about anyone except himself, his family, and his mobster friends and bosses?
My impression is that the antisemitic peanut farmer was a blind ideologue, whose evil ideology was rotten through and through.
And if you don’t see where that view comes from, then I think you are the one in need of reading some more history – history moreover, which you yourself say you lived through…
Carter was not popular during his own presidency, and he is not popular today – nor was he at any time in between. And even he stated that “the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about”.
So if Trump managed to be far less unpopular than Carter despite the media being “harder” on him, then certainly Carter himself must have recognized that the president who finally got around to actually moving the US embassy to Jerusalem instead of mere endless empty promises, better resonated with the electorate than he had – regardless of whether he agreed with Trump, which he clearly did not on many (most?) things.
——
@Roman-wannabibi-Shukhevich, the valor stealing, banderite nazi; the boastfully self-proclaimed pedophile and zoophile; the idolizer and threatener of rape and torture; and the idolator who previously claimed to worship some false god called “Perun”, but now has decided to pretend – very unconvincingly – to be both a Arabic muslim woman and her son, yet who does not even know that “habibi” is in the masculine form…
Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8
It was Wall Street’s way, or no way for the handcuffed Georgian, a man — unlike Trump —who actually cared about ordinary people. Read some history, man.
Believe what you want, but the Federal Reserve’s wealth-stimulating policies for rich Americans, allowing wealthy Americans to earn as much as 11 percent on no-risk, passive money market accounts while millions of working-class Americans lost their livelihoods, crippled Jimmy Carter’s presidency. That’s a fact.
If you actually believe that Jimmy Carter was, and I quote, “one of the most decent Presidents in American history”, then that certainly does explain it all U+1F923
It was under Carter, under Bush and under Clinton, not under Reagan, that the Federal Reserve pursued inflationary policies of high taxes, large expenditure and strong regulation. On the contrary, as Milton Friedman put it, Reaganomics was directly responsible for the Great Economic Boom of ’90s. And this was in great part due precisely to Reagan making the Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan take a tough stance against inflation even though it came at the cost of recession, something which the antisemitic peanut farmer in chief had always been unwilling to do because of his poor ratings and regulatory capture.
As for the “billionaire takeover of the U.S. economy”, that started long before Reagan was even born, but got a major boost under Woodrow Wilson when Reagan was a little child, and then again under FDR when Reagan was a young man and his own presidencies were still some half a century away.
Ronald Reagan was perhaps not as flawless as libertarians and conservatives often like to make out, but he was without a doubt the best president the US has had since Calvin Coolidge!
Some of my friends, family and neighbors voted for Carter in 1976, but not a one did in 1980. None.
Reagan was great. I voted for him in the 1976, 80, and 84 primary and the 80 and 84 general election.
Remember malaise? Remember stagflation and America held hostage? As for Carter, I didn’t trust him as Governor or as President. Lester Maddox was a lot better. I voted for him for Governor, and I voted for him in the 1976 general election for President.
Benefitting from the Wall Street-controlled Federal Reserve’s inflationary and high-interest rate policies in the late seventies leading to swelling bank accounts for the investor class while leading to the Great Recession of 1982-83, which painfully hurt middle-income and working-class Americans, Reagan was able to defeat Jimmy Carter, one of the most decent Presidents in American history..
It was the beginning of the billionaire takeover of the U.S. economy.
Look it up, Nuna. I lived through it.
If Ronald Reagan, whose massive tax cuts for the wealthy, is your standard then that kind of explains it all.
Libertarians don’t have a good ideology, so I don’t care to what extent Trump lines up with them. The best thing which can be said about Trump is that he doesn’t embarrass his country by walking off into the forest, making a mess in his pants, and falling asleep at international meetings the way his predecessor did. Of course, there’s still nearly four years left, so it’s possible he could decline to such a level as well.
“if Trump has any libertarian positions on issues it is strictly a coincidence”
“Biden and his cabinet seemed much creepier and more authoritarian to me. And still does in retrospect.”
“It’s not some libertarian ideal, but you have to start somewhere”
Yes, yes, yes. Precisely!
Trump is no libertarian and never has been. He has not even proved to be a (relatively) good president like Reagan. And most of his current cabinet appointments are certainly unimpressive – not to say trash*.
But to pretend that they are more creepy than Obama or Biden’s cabinets, or that we are about to experience more “authoritarianism run amok” than we did under Biden and Obama, is patently ludicrous. And doubly so, for someone who claims they can discern “genuine libertarians, small ‘l’ and big ‘L’ alike”. Come now, Mr Darcy!
*See also https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2024/11/libertarian-national-committee-chair-in-dialogue-with-trump-on-cabinet-appointee/#comments
Trump has made a start on cutting the bureaucracy at home and making peace abroad. It’s not some libertarian ideal, but you have to start somewhere.
Biden and his cabinet seemed much creepier and more authoritarian to me. And still does in retrospect.
I have to agree with Darcy… if Trump has any libertarian positions on issues it is strictly a coincidence. He is definitely a “my way or the highway” kind of guy.
Enjoy your $8 eggs.
No, I meant the last 236 years.
@Darcy G. Richardson
“arguably the least impressive and creepiest Cabinet in American history”
“we’re about to experience authoritarianism run amok”
As opposed to the past four years, you mean? U+1F601
@Steven R Linnabary
Surely someone of your standing in the party, has served as one of its delegate before? That is something which Trump’s “honorary membership” won’t allow him to do. Though, as you say, I doubt he would wish to even attend another LP convention at all – nor will he presumably ever need to.
Hang on tight folks, we’re about to experience authoritarianism run amok.
America’s imperious and megalomaniacal 47th President doesn’t have a libertarian bone in his body. It’s all about him, as evidenced by the sycophants surrounding him and now serving in his administration — arguably the least impressive and creepiest Cabinet in American history.
…and kudos to the Libertarian Party of San Francisco for standing for the party’s better self.
Great to see Steven Linnabary commenting here again. Perceptive comments from both Steven and Gene Berkman — both of whom are genuine libertarians, small “l” and big “L” alike.
Have I been missing something all these years I have been a “Life Member”? Other than a ribbon to affix to my convention registration tag, I haven’t got anything of value. And I don’t see djt ever setting foot in a LP convention again.
PEACE
“the Libertarian Party of San Francisco denounces the honorary Lifetime Membership awarded to President Trump”
Denounce away. Do so loud and do so proud.
“we do not believe she had the authority”
Believe what you want. I believe she did have the authority. But as an outside onlooker, my opinion on the matter is almost as irrelevant as that of the local San Francisco chapter.
“the Libertarian Party of San Francisco denounces […] mass deportation […] as […] antithetical to Liberty”
Immediately demonstrating why even my opinion is still more relevant than theirs. How far does your head need to be up your gastrointestinal tract to think ‘the Liberty to uphold the NAP and protect your property is antithetical to the Obligation to be violated’?
“including separation of parents and children, as inhumane”
It sure is. The parents should have thought of that before trying abuse children as a weapon, and should punished much more harshly than those illegals who did not try on something so immoral and unethical.
By the way, where was the LPSF again when Obama and Biden were putting kids in cages? Cause I don’t remember them making nearly as much noise about that…
—
@Gene Berkman
You raise a good point. But as McArdle noted in her farewell address, an honorary membership is significantly different from any other kind of membership: “An honorary membership does not confer voting rights. It does not include a signing of the non-aggression principle. But it is an honor.”
So McArdle thinks it’s OK to bestow on Trump an honorary membership to the national LP (i.e. to call him a big-L “Libertarian” between quotes going forward, but not so far as we can conclude from this a small-L libertarian) without requiring him to commit to the NAP; but not to grant him voting rights without requiring him to commit to the NAP (in the process of becoming a regular, proper member).
RONR 47:42 states “If there are to be honorary officers or honorary members, they must be authorized by the bylaws.” There is no athorization for this in the bylaws and the action is null and void.
How can a National Chair give a membership in The Libertarian Party that does not “require adherence to the party’s Non-Aggression Principle”?
That clearly indicates that Angela McArdle does not think that Donald Trump is a Libertarian.
It also means that Angela thinks it is ok to refer to an authoritarian as a “Libertarian.”