The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire issued a response this week to recent calls for it to be censured by the Libertarian National Committee over its messaging and social media conduct. In an effort to ease tensions, the party outlined a set of self-imposed rules it says it will follow when addressing internal disputes.
In the statement, published May 27, LPNH Chair Ben Weir said the party remains committed to its messaging strategy but has engaged in “several constructive conversations” with members of the national organization. Members of the LPNH’s Communication Team have spoken with LNC Chair Steven Nekhaila, Vice Chair Paul Darr, and Communications Director Brian McWilliams in an effort to improve the party brand and work toward maintaining a positive and professional relationship with those members who disagree with the state party’s approach.
“The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire cares fiercely about the perception of the Libertarian Party and its brand,” the statement reads. “We share the concerns of many in the Party that certain types of communications approaches and styles risk causing substantial damage to the perceptions of the Party.”
Prior to the release of the formal statement, Weir had told members of the Libertarian National Committee that the state party would treat any member who voted in favor of the censure as an “enemy to the cause for Liberty,” and that they would “face the full and unapologetic wrath” of him and the party. Notably, Weir himself is an Alternate member for LNC’s Region 6.
The controversy stems from separate motions introduced in May by LNC Treasurer Bill Redpath calling for both the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire and the Libertarian Party of Colorado to be censured for their conduct on social media and other alleged violations. The resolution addressing New Hampshire further encouraged the affiliate to voluntarily disaffiliate, accusing it of regularly posting content “that reasonable people would consider to have racist meanings” and of violating Bylaws Article 5.4 by endorsing then-Republican nominee Donald Trump for president in 2024.
The motions were originally scheduled for discussion during the LNC’s in-person meeting earlier this month, but due to time constraints, will now be addressed at a special meeting set for this Sunday.
While Weir did not apologize for the party’s “bold, unapologetic communication strategy,” stating that the organization believes no topic should be off-limits for libertarians to discuss and that both censorship and self-censorship is “antithetical” to liberty, he acknowledged the importance of maintaining a broad coalition of libertarians that tolerates some internal disagreement on certain subjects. To that end, he said the party has laid out three proposed internal rules it intends to follow and expects others to observe as well.
The rules state no intra-party attacks, including no aggressive language, slurs, or insults between party members. It specifically outlines several terms it describes as “right-coded” and “left-coded” insults as words to avoid. However, the party said it will still make an exception for its “actual enemies.”
It also calls for more sophisticated disagreement, urging members to address disputes politely, with evidence, and with facts and arguments. For repeated disagreements, the party stressed they be explored in public events or formal blog exchanges to allow each side to present their perspectives in depth. The last rule is for members to provide context when discussing controversial subjects, specifically referencing the use of memes.
“We believe this Party is big enough for multiple approaches to outreach and advocacy,” the statement continues. “Libertarianism is inherently decentralized. This is a great strength of the philosophy, as well as the Party, and it is one to be leaned into.”
Curious: To my knowledge, it’s only available as an image. The portions above are my own transcription. I sometimes include full releases in articles if they’re short enough or shared as plain text, but in the case of LPNH’s statement, it was a two-page image-based document.
Darryl: Sure, that’s not a problem.
The morale will continue until the beatings improve.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Ok, that’s enough horsing around, Reality. You know the number to text or call, or you can just leave it to my imagination until you get here. Everyone else:
Is the lpnh statement in question available anywhere in plain text so it can be quoted for analytical purposes?
Curious, my answer to all of those questions is yes. I may be working late, but hold on, I’m coming. You can’t beat this – not even with a stick, or any other implements:
https://genius.com/Sam-and-dave-hold-on-im-comin-lyrics
Reality, please don’t beat me up for asking, but if you find any dead cats when you get home, what would make you think Curious(ity) killed them? And if you find any dead horses, was it really Curious who beat them to death and beyond?
Could it perhaps be possible that you ran them over with your car as you drove too fast past the gate as you hurried home, or may they have died of natural causes, or could there be some other explanation? Might you just be looking for an excuse to clean my clock and punch my lights out, or do you really even need an excuse? Am I going to go to the moon? Are you drinking your lunch?
Is this too many questions? Are you not amused? Would you please (not) beat me? Can someone beat you to it and give me a good beating already? Can I wait long enough for you to get home? Can I stop being a brat? Will I?
Reality may indeed be a bitch, but Curious is definitely being a bitch today. The Reality is that sometimes being Curious can get you smacked around , metaphorically or otherwise, deservedly or not.
I read the LPNH statement and don’t see any reasonable way to translate it as AO seems to be doing it by way of analogy as best I can interpret the analogy. I might be missing a lot of context.
The Reality is I don’t care, but if I was Curious – I’m not – I might start asking things like what all do Mr. Sarwark, Mr. Perry, and perhaps Anonymous Observer (plus others here who might agree with them) include and exclude from their idea or definition of racism, blatant racism,or analogous “wife beating”?
I don’t see where the LPNH statement in question is dated anywhere, but the article above said it was Tuesday , by which I’m presuming Jordan means this past Tuesday , 27 May 2025 AD. That would be within the last 60 or so hours, or fewer hours than that whenever Mr. Perry did his scrolling through a “feed” he just regained access to reading after having been blocked four years ago.
I’m well fed enough as it is, so I’ll refrain from pecking at that feed, but if I was Curious I might ask how the dates and times of the twits on X which Mr. Perry says are blatantly racist compare with the statement release date.
Thank God I’m not Curious, because asking such questions might get me smacked around by my wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, friends, acquaintances, roommates, coworkers, boss, employees, business partner’s, neighbors, delivery drivers, people stopping by, random gawking stranger’s, etc, deservedly or not.
Curious is going to get taught a lesson when I get home, especially if I find any dead or missing cats, horses, or other animals on the property , or anything else conspicuously out of place. The chores better have been done and my supper better be ready and prepared the way I like, too. I’m just kidding, unless I’m not.
X,
Thank you. Does anyone else have any other such links to other places where this is being discussed, for anyone reading who might be more curious than Curious?
“It’s an analogy in reference to what LPNH is offering.”
I apologize if it was unclear, but I understood that much, which was why “beating their wives” was in quotes, so the questions still remain,
Have the LPNH governing faction acknowledged (what anonymous observer analogizes as) “beating their wives”? When, where, and how explicitly did they make any such acknowledgements? Did they do so individually, or in group voice?
@ anonymous observer
Did you read the disclaimers / caveats in my other comment that preceded the one addressed to you? If not, you might understand better why I ask the questions I do and in what spirit i ask them if you read it. However, if you tend to read fast or skim, it’s unlikely to be useful to you even if you do read it.
Regardless, you ask: “When did you stop beating your wife?”
If that’s a question for me, as I said, “7. ) My “ground rules” are that I ask questions, but don’t answer any, unless I can think of a way to answer in the form of a question. All my comments contain some question or questions. ”
Therefore: what would make you think that I’m not the wife, or that my husband isn’t still beating me, or that he ever beat me to begin with, or that I have or ever had a husband or a wife, or that I ever started or stopped beating my wife if I had or have one?
While it’s true that some people say “Reality is a bitch,” should one then necessarily infer that they are correct, or that she’s my wife, or that she therefore deserves to be beaten, or that I’m not too physically weak and or soft hearted to do it even if she does, among many other possibly incorrect inferences?
Furthermore, should one infer additionally that Reality, if indeed we were to supposed she is my wife, doesn’t enjoy it in some masochistic fashion or literally ask for it, perhaps even with a safeword or signal or some other such safeguards?
Even if I’m the wife, and even if I deserve and or receive beatings from my husband, anonymous observer is not my husband, so the original set of questions are the only ones I’m actually seeking answers to , whereas those in reply to his or her question to me – if it was a question to me – can be reasonably assumed to be analogous and or rhetorical questions as well, although answers as if they were actual literal questions might amuse some readers, maybe. I’ll try to remember to include this kind of caveat when I ask anything other than very literal questions, which my questions otherwise are.
Of course, it can probably be reasonably assumed that this question, if it was for me, was rhetorical and or analogous as well, but it does nothing to answer my still standing set of original and herein repeated questions, at least as far as I can tell. Neither did telling me that wife beating is an analogy here, but I’ve now hopefully cleared up that I understood that when I asked those questions, and that that was the significance of the quote marks, so those questions nevertheless still stand unless and until Anonymous Observer and or others answer them.
Scroll up or down for what the questions are.
>Anonymous Observer, with those same caveats: have the LPNH governing faction acknowledged “beating their wives”? When, where, and how explicitly did they make any such acknowledgements? Did they do so individually, or in group voice?
It’s an analogy in reference to what LPNH is offering.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Discussion elsewhere
https://thirdpartywatch.com/2025/05/27/lp-new-hampshire-responds-to-recent-criticism/
Mr. Perry, would you please text quote, screenshot, link, or in any way provide evidence or examples of which statements there you say are blatantly racist and how recent they are? If Mr. Perry doesn’t, would others here please do so?
I don’t click on X twits at all for any reason, and I’m not sure which definition of racism various folks have in mind when they use the term – they seem to vary widely – so I, and perhaps other readers, might be better judge for ourselves if the evidence is introduced here in some fashion, or better yet more than one for the benefit of different people who interact with 21st century technology differently.
Speaking of the latter, Jordan, if I might make a suggestion based on Mr. Perry’s comments: would it be too much to ask for both screenshots as well as links to X twits going forward, so different kinds of readers who may or may not be blocked from X twits, particular X accounts, or those who just don’t go there for whatever reason can see screenshots, while those who do interact with that site can see whatever is there in additional context and perhaps converse there as well?
I apologize for asking you to do more work, but I think different kinds of readers would benefit as a result if you do, which would in turn benefit your site in different ways as a hub of information and place for discussion.
1) Jordan, would you please consider instead of linking to Twitter, having the link be a screenshot of the tweet?
I did however just discover that, even though LPNH blocked me on Twitter 4 years ago, I can now see their tweets while logged in. I try to avoid the birdsite as much as possible.
2) After reading the letter from Ben, I scrolled the LPNH feed and noticed multiple tweets & retweets of blatantly racist statements. I can only assume that either the LPNH social media team literally did not get the memo, or the memo is meaningless.
Anonymous Observer, with those same caveats: have the LPNH governing faction acknowledged “beating their wives”? When, where, and how explicitly did they make any such acknowledgements? Did they do so individually, or in group voice?
Nicholas Sarwark, i’m in no ways saying he has or hasn’t or is it isn’t , but what racist things do you claim/allege Ben Weir to be doing, as distinct from his communications director or anyone else on his state committee?
General disclaimers :
In asking this question I guess I should make a few things explicit, with apologies for length:
1) I know next to nothing about Ben Weir. The sum of what I know about him is that he’s an alternative region representative to the libertarians nationwide committee, state chairman of the New Hampshire libertarians, presumably affiliated with the governing faction there (which I believe I read somewhere splintered from the “Mises” faction essentially because the NH group is more extreme), and recently issued what can be read as a threat of unspecified consequences, potentially even some of a physical or illegal nature, against anyone on the national committee who votes to censure or disaffiliate his state party.
2) I know relatively little about you. I know you were the national committee chairman in 2014-20 and feuded with the “Mises” faction which grew in reaction to some of your statements / views/ policies, that they came to power at the national level in 2022 and at various time at state levels, that you live(d) in NH and lived in several other states previously, that you’re relatively young – early 40s? – with several young children, that you are or were a lawyer and a used car salesman at various times, and I know various allegations people aligned with your faction or side have made about the Mises and NH factions and vice versa. I believe I remember reading that the state party stripped you of your membership after “their side” won a faction fight against you at one recent year’s state convention .
3) Although I’m curious by nature, my curiosity does not rise to the level of doing a bunch of research and “getting to the bottom” of who’s right and who’s wrong between you and them, or even of figuring out whether that’s even possible at all or if it is indeed a bottomless murky pit that becomes increasingly difficult to climb out of as one climbs down.
4) Thus, telling me to “go do some research,” read a book or several, etc, would be wasted on me. My curiosity does rise to the level of asking anyone here who makes claims to provide evidence for them, but that’s mostly to facilitate discussion – I actually feel like if anything I already know more than I want to about your party’s faction fights and personalities, perhaps far more.
5) Nevertheless, I don’t like to see vague and unsupported claims of any sort, or assumptions that anyone reading would already know to what you (or anyone who speaks up) is referring to. That’s what stirs my curiosity to ask questions, despite my general feelings about the broader subject.
6) I do my level best not to make any assumptions or claims of any sort whatsoever. If I ever make any, it’s an error on my part; if you’re feeling generous, please point it out so I can adjust my thoughts accordingly. But, please don’t ever presume I’m making any assumptions or claims I have not made explicitly because of what you might think is not explicitly stated in my questions (“read things into them”).
7) My “ground rules” are that I ask questions, but don’t answer any, unless I can think of a way to answer in the form of a question. All my comments contain some question or questions. They are all meant to be read hyperliterally.
On the odd chance you or others reading read all that, you should hopefully have the background to assess whether or how to answer the one question I asked this time as well as all other questions I ask in general.
“We’ll stop beating our wives if you stop complaining about us beating our wives.” – LPNH
If Ben Weir doesn’t want to be called a racist, Ben Weir should stop doing racist things.