News That The Libertarian Party Does Not Want You To Know

Mike Gilson de Lemos - Elitist?
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, tenth edition, on page 463, defines Elitism as, "the belief that a society or system should be run by an elite." Elitism is another face of authoritarianism, quite the opposite of libertarianism. Elitists are afraid of most people, so their solution is to assign some demeaning characteristics to them. The nazis were skilled at this: On their list were jews, gypsies, members of small religious denominations, "mental defectives", and political dissidents. That latter group are those who the "authorities" consider to be "fractious", that is, unable to control as they would want.

Mike Gilson de Lemos is currently the southeast regional representative to the Libertarian National Committee, as well as, Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Florida. I am commenting on a posting he made to some Libertarian Party egroups on 4 Feb 2001 at 18:35:02:

"Concern has been expressed not only by LNC but numerous LP State leaders"

Omitted Data, WHO are these LNC and numerous LP State leaders? There is no evidence for his statement.

"over the related issues of removing undisciplined persons from the organization while leaving the door open and avoiding factionalism,"

Omitted data, Gilson does not define "undisciplined" leaving it as an arbitrary. By arbitrarily removing persons, Gilson is promoting, not avoiding factionalism.

"while also preventing possession of a membership card from giving people the wrong impression of our relation to such persons. Mr. Alciere has taken to displaying his card on his website (as if possession of a card is what makes you a Libertarian),"

Altered importance, added inapplicable, assumed identities are not identical: Gilson fails to recognize that all a membership card is, is an acknowledgement that someone has paid their dues. Coming from someone who should know better indicates either stupidity or an ulterior motive on his part. For that matter, being on the LNC or LPF Executive Committee does not make one a libertarian either.

"lawsuits by disappointed candidates, and wild claims in the papers of people arrested with Libertarian promo cards as card carrying Libertarians rankle."

Omitted data, altered importance, wrong source. Gilson again omits the specifics, what suits by which allegedly disappointed candidates? What wild claims in which papers and when were these published? With other political parties such occurences are uncommon and is the cost of doing business. It appears Gilson is trying to fabricate a big problem out of background noise to rationalize his membership agenda.

"Perhaps the distinctions we need, and I think this is consistent with our by-laws and a matter of officializing terminology in use, is Supporter Class (education and information): Registered supporter (registered voter or has sent pledge without dues to us) Supporter/sympathizer (sends money but not member'send money but not pledged) Supporter/Supporting member (National dues payer, does not vote if not state member in good standing) and Voting Member Class (Political Action and voice in party): Voteing full member (State member in good standin, thus votes) Pleade members (as defined by various States etc.) Special Members: Honorary members of various classes for notable persons (as defined by National and States) Goodwill members (non-voting elder or notable members who wish to adopt a role as advisors orconciliators and are thus relieved of the burden of voting, candidacy or office-holding as a supreme honor."

Wrong target, added inapplicable, altered importance. Gilson has evidently copied membership terminology from a charity, which is based on levels of financial contribution, and twisted it with his own arbitrary definitions. He has created membership classes which would disenfranchise (prevent from voting) members who he considers "undisciplined", as if that is even important and relevant. Note that Gilson refers to voting as a "burden"!

"We sure needed something like that in Arizona to cool the hotheads through recognized prestige and good sense, and they might be excellent public spokespersons, such as past candidates. Their retirement status would defuse factions from forming about them or controversies from the past continuing.)"

Falsehood, wrong target, added inapplicable. Gilson is targeting those in Arizona who object to the corruption of the LNC and the oppression originating from one Peter Schmerl, an authoritarian attorney who has repeatedly sued the Arizona Libertarian Party and is now a shill of the LNC. Gilson is advocating the exclusion from power of vote, those who he considers to be political dissidents. Excluding these people would aid and abet factionalization and create continuing controversies.

"We might consider creating or recommending educational courses for members to emphasize that being a Libertarian is a process while improving skills in teamwork, communication, common errors among new members, personal application of Libertarianism, community problem solving etc."

Note here that Gilson uses "Libertarian" with a capital, referring to a party member, not someone who is necessarily a libertarian, the political philosophy, as in "personal application of Libertarianism", whatever that may be according to Gilson. Seminars and courses are already offered by libertarians, some of whom are party members. Gilson is suggesting here what already exists.

"so people become "Certified Activists, Candidates, Problem Solvers, Libertarian Learners" etc. or even discussion circles led by participants, such as on "What it means to be Libertarian." If Microsoft can do it and improve things, we can too."

Added inapplicable, wrong source, wrong target, assumed similarities are not similar, they are different, altered importance. Activists do not need to be "certified" to be active as Gilson suggests. They make up a small minority of any organization and Gilson wants to regulate them with "certification". Gilson has cited Microsoft Corporation as a model for this, which is a completely different body of data than a political party. Microsoft's authoritarian business model with its resultant coercion and fraud have made it into a public infamy. Gilson evidently wants a status like that for the Libertarian Party.

"As per by-law and statement of mission we might add in our cards that National is an information/educational and "support" of candidates organization, an leave States to define themselves as political action groups. We might also suggest to States some sort of probationary or associate supporter class to downgrade fractious persons who don't get it to non-voting status, thus leaving their residual national supporting status on the level of a memberhsip to Smithsonian or National Geographic Society, or other public educational group."

Wrong target, added inapplicable, assumed similarities are not similar, they are different. Gilson wants to change the national LP into a passive, educational organization and disenfranchise political dissidents, "fractious persons", who do not agree with Gilson, "who don't get it".

"We might guide States to limit themselves in downgrading membership to person of a difficult and uncivil nature and recommend several acceptable procedures, including a counseling process, upon study by a working group of the States. Thus the issue is confined to civil behavior, and perhaps known turpitude. Perhaps a probationary associate period for members of a few years is needed. Perhaps a counseling group of elder members not to decide byt develop and counsel people in odd cases."

Wrong target, added inapplicable. Gilson continues to harangue about disenfranchising members who do not show "civil behavior" to him. For this he advocates "counseling". Gilson does not define what type of counseling a new member or a fractious person would be subject to: Listening to a non-stop four hour speech by him? Behavior modification? Hypnosis? Psychotropic drugs? Or anything to get them to think and act according to Gilson's looney expectations? This sounds a great deal like marxist-leninist thought reform.

"In most groups membership is decided by the Secretary watched buy (sic) some sort of member watchdogs, often a membership committee,"

Falsehood, omitted data. Gilson does not specify any groups that operate in that manner. I know of no groups that operate their membership anything like what Gilson describes here.

"and there are various levels of membership to allow people to participate and not feel bad while or be directly associated for good or ill while directing difficult person to such classes.."

Falsehood, wrong target, added inapplicable. Gilson seems to think that disenfranchised people would be content with their status. For a fellow who has a condo full of boxes of musty smelling books, and claims to have read them all, he is not smart. Of course, Gilson arrogantly thinks disenfranchisement is "for their own good."

"This allows us to say more clearly what is the case, that fractious persons not vetted by their fellow State members are of that status of mere sympathizers or supporters in our information/educational/support group, and allow States full leeway in determining voting membership while not getting into a purge mentality."

Wrong target, added inapplicable, falsehood. Gilson continues to harp on disenfranchising political dissidents which is in fact a purge mentality.

"You are thus always welcome as a supporter but must show team qualities to be an active voting member. This all seems to follow the practice of many groups and parties, who have dealt with similar problems and handle them along these lines."

Wrong target, added inapplicable, omitted data. Gilson does not mention what groups and parties operate as he fantasizes. I am aware that some communist parties have operated along these lines. Does Gilson want the libertarian party to operate along communist lines? Evidently he does.

"I am sure there is much to be improved here but this may be the right direction for fruitful discussion and a simple re-statement of what we are doing that solves various concerns."

Falsehood. Gilson's proposal is authoritarian garbage at its worst.

"Thus National could issue a card that says "Supporter" with the pledge, Nolan Chart etc and States may issue cards as they wish or endorse National cards in a special box on the card by sending an approved list on a quarterly basis or other means so as not to overburden staff. Finally, persons who wish to not take the pledge (and thus cannot be voting members) may have a special box where they simply generally support the ideals of the Party or agree to be informed on Libertarianism or something like that. Whileatit, we might give several Nolan cards or pamphlets to new members to distribute as "your first project" as a Libertarian. maybe we need a statement on the cards of what "my card means".

Added inapplicable, wrong target. This is more looney harangue from Gilson where he adds details to an already destructive proposal.

"I think in all this the States and LNC must make a statement that basic civility is important and expected of all officers, lead activists and candidates and that factionalism and posturing blather is out, gentle politics and goal focus is in. Again, these are just various ideas but I think by gently adjusting what we have we can address man concerns at both National and State levels."

Wrong target, altered importance. The purpose of a political party is to get candidates elected who represent the party's principles. Gilson wants lp members to behave in a manner that conforms to his abberated standards. If factionalism and posturing blather is out, then why is HE creating a faction and posturing blather in his membership proposal?

He does have a few supporters in the Libertarian Party of Florida: Lisa Bullion, current vice-chair, (see the article at the bottom of this page for more on her), Frank Clarke, Bullion's handpicked minion on the "Rules Committee" and current chair of the Pinellas affiliate. As a note, both he and Bullion let the affiliate virtually die back in 1997, before yours truly put it back together. Michael Barnett, current regional rep in the LPF. Barnett was formerly state volunteer coordinator for the corrupt Harry Browne for President campaign. In early 2000, Barnett requested the Pinellas affiliate's nomination for County Commission candidate, which we were all set to give him until he went off on a beserk verbal attack on the Executive Committee and bylaws.

What Mike Gilson de Lemos needs to do is take responsibility, which entails: Stop being a victim, stop taking handouts (he told me that he was getting disability income. Odd, there seems to be nothing physically wrong with him.) and get a job. Do what most of the human race does and work for a living. He may find that he becomes more "civil" and less "fractious". He may begin to be able to live with himself and have a clean conscience.

A Leg Called Arizona
Disclaimer: ANY SIMILARITY IN THIS STORY BETWEEN PERSONS ALIVE, DEAD, OR NONE OF THE ABOVE IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL.

It was another routine day at the party store for Steve. Customers bought from him because they liked what he had to offer compared to the two supermarkets down the road. He smiled to himself and reflected on the market niche business he oversaw and started to daydream only to be rattled by the pesky visitor who always tried to get in. "Me-me-me-me-me-me-me, let me in or I will sue you!", the puny creature said in an "alvin the chipmonk" voice. "Get lost!" Steve shouted at the squirrel. "What a pest", Steve thought to himself. "I ought to shoot you!" Steve threatened and grabbed a 20 gauge shotgun he had stashed under the counter. "You shoot at me and I will sue you!" squealed the squirrel. Peter, as the neighborhood children called him, was the local beggar rodent who knew just how much nuisance he could cause before he would retreat into the trees, evading retaliation from people around the neighborhood who, if they wouldn't give him food, he would find a way to steal it. Yes, some folks considered calling animal control to apprehend the squirrel, but after every misdeed, his departure seemed to be sufficient relief to forestall such a undignified fate. This gave Peter ample time to plot and scheme. On several occasions, he told the packaged nuts delivery man that he was a store employee and to leave the goods with him, to no success. He tried sueing the store several times to coerce them into letting him freely run around the store. That didn't work too well.

One day while he was peering into the store from the window, he noticed that Steve tapped his right foot to the music from the radio. A brilliant idea then crashed over him like a bucket of acorns: Convince Steve that he had a bad leg and the only way to fix it was to amputate it!

That afternoon, Peter watched a part-time employee of the party store, Dave, drive up, park, leave his car, and saunter across the small parking lot. Peter squealed, "Hey Dave! Something is wrong with Steve, his leg seems to have a mind of its own. It moves around uncontrollably." "Peter, mind your own business", Dave replied, visibly annoyed with the squirrel. After Dave entered the store and greeted Steve, he looked at Steve's leg tapping in time to a tune he was half-listening to. The two exchanged pleasantries and Steve left to go on lunch break. As Steve walked out of the store, Peter chided him, "Dave is very concerned about you Steve. He says that you have a bad leg that you can't control." "Shut up and go away, squirrel!" Steve hollered, now wondering if there really was something wrong with his leg.

Peter watched Steve walk down the street and turn a corner. The squirrel scampered down the tree he was in and over to the store window, where he rapidly scratched his paws to get Dave's attention. "Dave, let's make a deal!" Peter squealed. "Let's see, how about I give you a bag of nuts and you run under a fast moving truck?" Dave rejoined. "If I survived I could sue the driver, but I have a better offer," Peter said. "Tell me," Dave urged. "Seeing as you guys don't like my lawsuits, fraud and harassment, I promise to stop the lawsuits and harassment if you let me into the store under certain conditions," Peter cautiously offered. "And what may those be?" Dave queried. "First of all, Steve's leg has got to go, we can't have a leg dancing around with a mind of its own. Secondly, I will provide Steve with a new fake leg that I can sleep in and he can keep a watch over me. Thirdly, that I become a voluntary assistant in the store and can eat my fair share of snacks so I don't have to beg any more," spoke Peter, trying hard not to sound like a conman. Dave thought, "It is a bizarre offer, but it would solve a lot of problems: No more harassment or lawsuits from Peter (did he omit fraud?). They would have "free" help in fetching certain items. Peter didn't really eat that much, so his overhead would be nominal, and having a "tame" squirrel running around the store was a bit of a novelty. People might just come in to see the newly "reformed" squirrel." "We are having a board meeting in a couple days, and we will discuss your offer, Peter. Of course, there might be limitations on how much you are allowed to eat off the shelves," Dave said. "No problem, I'm not asking for much," Peter said with pseudo-humility.

The day of the board meeting arrived. Peter stood on the window ledge as the board members arrived, trying his hardest to look cute and harmless. The Board was familiar with Peter's past shenanigans as they had to vote many times to pay attorney bills and discuss the nuisance. Each of them looked at Peter with varying degrees of suspicion as they walked into the store. The meeting was heated. Steve did not want to give up one of his legs, but the board members pressured him. They were tired of the draining lawsuits and saw an opportunity to put the nuisance to work. They parlayed an agreement that was to be kept secret with the squirrel. Yes, Steve had to sacrifice his leg or find another job. He grievingly said that he was not going to tell his wife, but she would find out afterwards, of course.

It was not difficult to find a doctor who would diagnose Steve's leg as hopelessly diseased and in need of immediate removal. The day of scheduled surgery arrived. Dave drove Steve to the hospital and he morosely got out of the car with a small suitcase and walked to the check-in desk. He completed the paperwork and was assigned a room shared by one other patient. As Steve walked in, he found a doctor, a nurse and an orderly surrounding the bed of his still unknown roommate. The doctor was writing on a clipboard and the nurse looked over at the newcomer. "I'm Steve, am I in the right room?" he queried. "Yes you are. It looks like you will have it to yourself for at least until tomorrow " the nurse replied. The doctor then walked out of the room looking mentally occupied, with the nurse following him. Steve could now see his would-be roommate. His face was pale and bluish with eyes that were transfixed on the ceiling. His mouth was half open, but a breath was not passing through it. Steve became visibly horrified. The orderly noticing this executed his rehearsed levity,"Don't worry, this is a hospital. People die here all the time." He chuckled as he wrapped the bedsheet around the departed stranger. The orderly then reverted to his quiet, dutiful self and wheeled the deceased on deathbed out of the room. Steve sat down to regain his composure.

No sooner than he began to fathom his situation, did a man burst through the door carrying a hospital gown and a plastic attache' case. "Are you Steve? I'm Frank the hospital barber," the spectacled man said as he extended his hand for a shake. "My leg is getting amputated today?" Steve questioned fearfully. "No, your surgery is scheduled for tomorrow. I"m just going to do a little shaving around where the surgeon will make the incision. While I set up, you change into this gown," the barber said as he handed Steve the white cotton garmet. Steve changed into the hospital garb and layed down on his bed. The barber pulled out a spirit black marker and drew a large "A" just above Steve's knee. "What's that for?" Steve questioned. "This will be the first amputation of the day tomorrow. So it is A as in Arizona", the barber responded. Frank was not insensitive to the apprehension of people hospitalized for major procedures, so he made some smalltalk, "What happened to your roommate? Did he check out?" "Yep, you could say that. He didn't even say goodbye," Steve replied, trying to lighten up. "Oh, hohoho. Well, I guess it was his time." Frank mused. The barber completed his work on Steve's leg, handing Steve his business card before he left.

Steve's meals the rest of the day were juice and milkshakes. He watched tv to try to take his mind off what would be to most people as ludicrously unthinkable: Give up your leg to mollify a criminal, litigious rodent. But Steve and the rest of the board were coercible, their own hands not being so clean.

The next day, Steve's surgery commenced late in the morning. He got onto a gurney which was wheeled down a corridor into an elevator, which descended a couple floors, and down another corridor into the operating room. The anesthesiologist hooked two intravenous feeders up to him, one being a plasma and the other an anesthetic. As the regulator was adjusted, the chemical began to drip and mix with Steve's blood. A numbing fog overcame him where he did not feel pain, nor care what was excised.

Towards the end of the amputation, the surgeon finished the cauterization and sutured a stump from where Steve's once useful and healthy, but politically disagreeable leg was. Three technicians were packing ice around the appendage in a long plastic container. The anesthesiologist turned off the anesthetic drip and increased the plasma drip. Steve gradually began to regain conciousness. He turned to watch the technicians cover the frozen leg container. One of them told the surgeon something to the effect that the leg was being flown to a research institute under contract. The surgeon acknowledged. Steve uttered out of his analgesic haze, "Goodbye, Arizona."

Steve fell into a deep sleep, only to waken again several hours later with his stump in great pain. He started to groan and an attending nurse in the recovery room brought him a small paper cup containing two white pills and a glass of water. "Take these", she said, dropping them in his mouth then putting the glass to his lips, gently tilting it so he could drink. After several minutes he felt a floating sensation and the hurt in his stump dissipated. He was wheeled back to his room to begin recouperation.

Every four hours, a nurse would bring him a cup of the same two pills and a glass of water to deaden the pain of the stump. He would watch tv to pass the time, flipping channels with the remote control because nothing there could distract him for very long from his predicament.

On the fourth day, a woman came in pushing a book cart, "I'm Helen from the public library. Would you like to borrow some reading material?" "No, not really", Steve said glumly. "I have magazines, too", she said trying to enthusiastically present them to him. "I'll pass, Helen", Steve responded. "Well, you seem like the kind of man who likes to read a good book", Helen replied, not giving up easily, "Let's see, how about 'A Farewell to Arms'? " Steve was looking down at his stump and the woman noticed, giving her a pang of humiliation. She turned and retreated out the door with her books on wheels cart.

The next week and a half was a melange of monotony, grief, and regret for Steve. Some relief came when the head floor nurse walked in and informed him that he could go home,"Your insurance coverage pays us for two weeks, so we discharge you tomorrow." "I wanted to go home a week ago, why didn't you sign me out then?", Steve questioned. "If your carrier covered only one week, we would have. You play the game", the senior nurse replied.

Steve did not sleep well that night. He had told his wife that he was going on a business trip in Asia to negotiate an exclusive distribution contract. Just before he got into Dave's car to "go to the airport", she kissed him and told him to "break a leg". This rattled both he and Dave. She noticed this and asked him if he was worried to which he replied that he was just thinking about the long flight ahead of him. Now, he was going to face the music, full blast.

The next morning an orderly walked into Steve's room after he finished breakfast to help him get dressed to return home. He showed Steve how to use safety pins to secure the pant leg around his stump until he had a prosthetic one in place. This orderly left and the one he met who removed the deceased patient from the room two weeks ago came in with a crutch and a wheelchair, "Hello Steve. I see you're doing well!" "I am just eager to go home and back to work," Steve originated. The orderly helped Steve finish packing and into the wheelchair. Steve was wheeled out of the room holding the crutch and small suitcase on his lap. An elevator ride took them to the ground floor and reception desk where Dave was waiting to drive him home. Dave looked agitated, "I will take it from here, thank you, sir," he said to the orderly, who bid farewell to Steve, "You come back and see us again, Steve!" Steve fearfully laughed and waved good-bye. Dave spoke quietly to Steve, "We have got to talk. There is trouble." Steve whispered, "My wife already found out?" "No, much worse than that. I'll tell you the rest in the car," Dave said.

When they got to the car, Dave took the crutch and suitcase under one arm and opened the trunk with the other, dropping both in, then closing the hatch. He walked over to Steve and helped him up from the wheelchair and into the front passenger seat of the car. Steve closed the door, trying to prove to himself that he was not helpless. Dave made it around the front of the car to the driver's door, unlocking and opening it in fast succession. Now inside, he started the engine and looked in Steve's direction, but not at him, "Do you know what happened to your amputated leg?" "It was donated to medical science," Steve replied confusedly. "It was packed in ice and flown to a facility doing research in limb and organ cloning. Cells from your leg were used to grow a male leg and a female leg. For some reason, the male leg did not fully develop, but the female not only fully grew, but branched off to form a complete live human body that has a mind of her own!" Dave recounted indignantly. "Are you trying to cheer me up with your dry humor?" Steve questioned nervously. "I'm not kidding you. She wants to go into business for herself in one area, cutting us out! Peter has filed several lawsuits to try to get her to stop and go away, but that is not working. We are having a meeting with her today to try and talk some sense into her. We have called in a management consultant who thinks he can manipulate anybody to help us out." Dave stated. "What would you want me to do, act fatherly?" Steve queried. "If that will help, yes. We're using the hard guy/soft guy approach. The squirrel is the hard guy and everybody else is the soft guy," Dave said, letting Steve in on their strategic plan.

Dave drove back to the store and into the parking lot. He retrieved Steve's crutch from the trunk and went over to help him out of the car. When Steve cleared the door using his crutch, Dave escorted the newly handicapped employee into the building. As they turned to go to the meeting room in the back, there stood Harry, of Harry's Previously Owned Vehicles, a local firm infamous for its shady deals. Harry paid the store employees kick-backs for referrals, calling the payments, "gratuitous consideration". A pile of his business cards were near the cash register with Harry's picture featuring his trademark skeleton smile. Dave shook his hand as Harry bellowed, "That woman is despicable if you want my two cents. She won't play our game. If we ignore her, she will go away." "We will handle this diplomatically. I think that horse will want to wear a yoke when we're done," Dave said with smooth arrogance. They all laughed as Harry pumped Steve's hand. Harry parted with them saying, "Well, I'm going to go home now and watch television."

Dave and Steve proceeded into the meeting room where the board was assembled with the squirrel, the management consultant, and, fairly new to the world, but not naive, Arizona. Dave and Steve took their seats at the table. Those present looked over at Dave who started the meeting, "We are here today to hash out differences so we can be one happy family again, so to speak. Our proposal is that you merge with our business with the squirrel as your superior. We will handle your transactions for you and give you 50% of the base. We will keep a higher percentage of any amounts exceeding the base. We will send all the customers our newsletter that tells them everything we want them to know." Arizona was shaking her head, "Dave, I don't need this business and I never have. I can see that you operate it in a very unethical manner. You preach virtues to your customers that you don't apply to yourselves, accept payoffs, and drive off your most productive employees. You don't earn your keep. Your offer is absurd." Peter angrily chimed in, "Listen honey, get used to it, I am your boss now!" Arizona quickly replied, "I am not your honey and you are not my boss." The assembly went into commotion and the management consultant stood up and clapped his hands, "All right. Let's calm down." He mumbled to Dave, "Let me handle this. I know psychology. I will use my M.L. charm. Watch this." He turned to Arizona and said, "Miss, I am Mister Lemon, but you can call me M.L. I am here to help you. I just want to show you that Peter is a softy inside and really quite harmless." M.L. grabbed a packet of shelled peanuts he bought at the counter before the meeting, dumped a few into his hand and held them down on the table, "Come here, Peter. M.L. has a snack for you." The squirrel darted across the table, startling several board members, and pounced onto M.L.'s hand, biting down greedily at the pile of nuts. "Owwww!" M.L. hollered in pain, throwing the nuts and squirrel off his hand reflexively. He reached into his pocket, pulled out a handkerchief and pressed it around a small, bleeding wound in his finger. M.L. pasted a smile on his face and uttered, "See, he is an aggressive rascal, but cute. You should try to work with him." "Mister Lemon, I don't buy it. Peter is a malicious, little rodent. It is not surprising to me that you would associate with him, but I choose not to," Arizona replied. M.L. sat down and arrogantly muttered to Dave, "She should not be put in charge of anything. She is fractious." Dave nodded. Arizona spoke to the board, "I thank you for your time, but we have some very basic irreconcilable differences. I will be on my way." She got up and left the meeting room.

Steve quickly hobbled up on his crutch and followed her out the door, tapping her on the back and beckoning her to step outside with him. She followed him out in front of the store. "Arizona, we really want to settle this. If we were to get rid of the squirrel, would you agree to the other terms?" Steve offered. "Steve, you're asking me, 'How oppressive can we get before you won't tolerate us anymore?' and my answer to you is that any oppression is unacceptable. You betrayed your principles and forfeited me. I choose to be a sovereign person now. Good bye," Arizona replied. She turned and walked across the parking lot, onto the sidewalk and down the block, going out of view when she turned a corner.

Steve hobbled back into the store to be greeted by Peter standing on a plastic, prosthetic leg, "Surprise! Here is your new leg. Try it on, Steve." Peter had chewed a hole in the bottom of the foot so that he could crawl up into the leg and safely sleep. Peter needled him on, "It's just you and I now, Steve. I think we're going to make a great team! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha."

The L.P. Degrades Even More - the Ousting of Legislator Neil Randall
For a political party that represents itself as advocating freedom of the press, the November 2000 article in LP News by one Scott Berkey, disproves this fraudulent representation by the libertarian party.

Background: Marriage is defined as a contractual union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation. A function that can be, and is, assigned to government is to act as a trusted third party in the enforcement of contracts. It is not the proper function of government to attempt to redefine established institutions such as marriage, even by calling it something else, but tantamount. Any individuals that advocate or empower force to be used to redefine an established institution are authoritarians. They are definitely not libertarians, even if they hold a membership in the Libertarian Party and sit on an L.P. executive committee. Any person denying the truth of an event that they have witnessed is committing fraud.

Neil Randall is a state representative in Vermont and, until his ousting from LP affiliation through fraudulent means, was the only elected LP state legislator. The lobbying against Mr. Randall appears to have begun with one Chris Costanzo, a former Vermont LP chairman who opposed Randall's antipathy to "gay marriage", whether it be called that or "civil union". Costanzo brought coercive pressure on Scott Berkey, the present Vermont LP chairman, to have Randall canned as the LP candidate, even though Randall has a consistent libertarian voting record and was a adamant supporter of the LP. Berkey caved into the coercion (another form of force) and took an anti-Randall position to the extent that he resorted to fraudulent means, even after the state committee voted to nominate Randall, to have him canned as a LP candidate.

Berkey then wrote a spin-justification for his treachery that was published as an article in the November issue of LP News. Berkey accused Neil Randall of "making anti-gay remarks" in that article. These were actually statements made about "gay activists" who support the use of government force to make people accept so-called gay marriage. Berkey purposely omitted the context of Randall's statements to make him look "unlibertarian".

The libertarian (not libertarian party) solution to contractual unions is that government should not regulate them, but optionally may be utilized as a trusted third party to adjudicate contract enforcement. Marriage protocols should be the dominion of religious and philosophical organizations. If gays wish a formal union of some sort, they should find an organization that provides protocols for such a union. Such things are not the province of responsible government.

Neil Randall was most correct in his opposition to government regulation of "civil unions". Berkey and Costanzo do not have libertarian positions on this issue, rather they are authoritarian. Neil Randall is a major loss to the Libertarian Party.

It seems a large number of LP members embrace fraud, corruption and authoritarianism. They would rather support an unethical loser like Harry Browne, than a libertarian winner like Neil Randall.

The Specter of the Harry Browne Campaign - more Corruption?
With the permission of William Calvo, I am sharing an email about what appear to be more financial irregularities from the Harry Browne campaign. "While we are not yet in a position to assign fault, my partner and I have had to place more than $300,000 of our firms's funds at risk, allegedly because of the Browne campaign's inaccurate projections of cable television advertising for its presidential campaign. Sound familiar? During the spring of 1999, a public company that we represent and in which we are the largest stockholders, was approached by Lorilei Communications, Inc. ("Lorilei"), which claimed to be the exclusive cable television media placement firm for the Browne campaign, with a view to being acquired and provided with required expansion capital. I verified Lorilei's claims regarding its Browne Campaign bona fides through Charles Champion (then secretary of the LPF) and Brian Collar, then the Florida volunteer coordinator for the Browne campaign. Based on affirmations received and in the hopes of assisting the development of a libertarian media friendly television production and media placement firm in Florida, I championed the acquisition of Lorilei and my firm pledged to provide the required expansion funds. The acquisition took place, but the Browne Campaign failed to come close to its projected media placement, as a result of which, Lorilei and its post closing successor, AmeriNet Communications, Inc. ("AmeriCom"), were forced to abandon expansion plans and the $300,000+ that my partner and I pledged and provided were used to keep the doors open. If the Lorilei/AmeriCom allegation are accurate, and their failure to meet their financial operating projections was attributable to the Browne Campaign, then thousands of public stockholders, in addition to my partner and I, amy have been victimized, either by inept planning or dishonesty in the Browne Campaign. That bodes very poorly for the future of the Libertarian Party, especially if news of this becomes public and stockholders start considering litigation options. To date, my partner and I, along with our families, have borne the brunt of this problem. No thanks, apologies or explanations have been provided to us from the Browne Campaign. That is not only churlish, but foolish."

Failures of the Clique of Irresponsibility
The recent crushing defeat of the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, Harry Browne, underscores consequences of irresponsible conduct in the Libertarian Party. (Please see Jacob Hornberger's website hyperlinked in the left block.) Browne has developed a cult following within the party who have not only gullibly ignored his corrupt financial activities, but several members of such, went so far as to verbally attack those who exposed the Browne campaign's financial irregularities and even those who tacitly refused to cooperate with the corrupt campaign.

Indeed, the Libertarian Party now seems to have embraced poor ethics: The Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida, Lisa Bullion, did not have proper written notice given to state party members about the October convention, with the result being there were about one half as many voting members there compared to the previous year. She refused to accept discussion of this situation on the convention floor and had her "rules committee" of two friends proclaim that "proper notice was given". The November agenda of the state party's executive committee meeting included an item proposed by the secretary, Mike Gilson de Lemos, "expulsion or inactivation procedure of fractious (a word meaning unable to control or easily irritated) or impolite members." Such a proposal is obviously not libertarian, rather it is fascist.

In contrast to the financial irregularities of the previous Chairman, that put the party on the brink of insolvency at the time of the 1999 LPF election, this one broke her promise to run only one term, and mysteriously, failed to give any prior written notice of the elections. Such actions invalidate the label "Libertarian" and make the LPF into a fraud. The national LP is enjoined from intervening per its bylaws. It can take the extreme action of disaffiliation, like it did with the Arizona LP, that later backfired. But nothing in between. The LP lacks any customary means, like a tribunal, to handle serious charges about members. This is by design, as I had proposed such a system on three occasions to Bullion, the state chair, and de Lemos, the then regional representative. These proposals were rejected. Bullion stated that the "rules committee" was the judiciary. (A committee of her two friends)

If the LP refuses to take responsibility to handle serious situations with a customary justice procedure, how can anyone expect them to bring order to our society if they refuse to bring it to themselves?