Steve G.

Archive for December 1st, 2008|Daily archive page

Call to Arms: Resolution of Discipline against Angela Keaton

In Activism, Boston Tea Party, Crazy Claims, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Lies and the lying liars who tell them, Politics, Protest on December 1, 2008 at 10:15 pm

The charges against Angela Keaton have finally been disclosed (well, leaked, LOL) and Stewart Flood is behind them.  He wrote it, and he plans to present it on Saturday.

Grab your popcorn, folks, because this one is a doozy.  Strangely, it reflects far more upon Stewart than it does on Angela.  After reading it over, it’s my opinion that Stewie needs both a humor implant, and a life.  It must have taken him forever to dig up all this crap on Ms. Keaton, and most of it obviously was just a joke on her part, an exaggeration on his part, and/or taken completely out of context.  The rest I’ll have to check into, but as far as I’m concerned, just glancing over it based upon what I have seen, the charges are a joke.

Of particular interest is the allegation that Ms. Keaton provided material support to another political party (assumably the BTP).  What exactly was Bob Barr doing, both when he sat on the LNC and was the LP’s presidential candidate, while his PAC contributed thousands to Republican candidates, if not providing material support to another party?  Why wasn’t he brought up on disciplinary charges? 

The resolution is to suspend her, but the suspension will be rescinded if she submits a written apology to millions of people within seven days, on about 20 differerent alleged “offenses”, to be published in LP News.  This is clearly in my opinion nothing but an attempt to humiliate her, given the very weird nature of the charges, and force her to bend to the demands of the reformers.  

So, here’s your assignment, LFV contributors and readers.  Dig up all the dirt you can on every single person she has allegedly harmed, according to the resolution.  I know there’s a lot out there, because I have received a lot of it over time.  I’m talking everything, from Stewart allegedly claiming to have been a Unabomber suspect, to men on the LNC calling Angela a “fucking bitch”.  Post it in comments.  

Here’s the “Resolution of Discipline”:  resolution-of-discipline-for-angela-keaton

Beatin’ Keaton

In Libertarian Party-US on December 1, 2008 at 5:29 pm

It seems the fate of elected Libertarian National Committee member Angela Keaton is the main event on the LNC agenda this weekend.  Perhaps the LNC, meeting a month after the Libertarian Party ticket receieved 0.4% of the national popular vote, elected zero senators, zero members of Congress, and zero governors, when an incumbent president and vice president may be guilty of war crimes, and when an incoming president has the potential to become a latter-day Franklin Delano Roosevelt, feels there is nothing more pressing to be discussing.

I cannot speak to the charges against Ms. Keaton, because, at least from what information I have seen, no one knows what they are.  Even in a court system many Libertarians decry, defendants are told what they are being asked to defend themselves against.  The LNC seems set on Guantanamo-style prosecution.  Maybe 9/11 really did change everything.

I have never met Ms. Keaton (nor anyone on the current LNC, except for a brief introduction to Dr. Mary Ruwart years ago), but we have had many friendly exchanges online and I consider her a friend.  Because of that, even if I did know what was alleged against her, I might have a hard time being objective about it.  It does seem to me that the months-long public discussion over her fate has been intended to pressure her into resigning.  If I were her, I would probably do so — not because it’s the right thing to do, but because I have the intestinal fortitude of a particularly nervous kitten.  I am prone to hyper-sensitivity and to take slights personally, which is part of why I am not running for LNC or any other office.  Ms. Keaton, thankfully, is made of sterner stuff.  I hope she will not resign, and in fact will continue her run for the 2012 presidential nomination, even if — or especially if — removed from the LNC.

According to Dr. George Phillies, Bob Barr headed a political action committee that contributed money to non-Libertarian candidates who faced Libertarian rivals during Barr’s tenure on the LNC.  I do not believe Mr. Barr was suspended or removed for these actions.  Therefore, I hope when the LNC considers whatever allegations are raised against Ms. Keaton, it will use this precedent as a low bar.  Is anything she may have done worse than actively working against the Libertarian Party’s candidates while on the LNC?

LNC member Scott Lieberman urges factions to compromise for the greater good

In Libertarian on December 1, 2008 at 12:43 am

Scott Lieberman, LNC Alternate Representative, posted the following to the LNC discussion list today.

As I mentioned a while ago, 98% of all of the elected offices in the United States are at the local level. The majority of those are non-partisan.

That means that your constituents can run for those local, non-partisan offices, or apply for a Board or Commission, regardless of how effective the National LP is.

And yet, the LNC is at war with itself over – basically – who was (or will be) our Presidential Nominee, and, to a lesser extent, the National LP Platform.

Why are we fighting so hard over what are basically outreach tools? Although I disagree with these statements, even IF Bob Barr ran a “conservative-libertarian” campaign, or IF the National LP Platform just barely makes it to the 70-70 point on the Diamond Chart – do either of those conditions make it impossible for you or your constituents to serve as elected or appointed officials in local offices? Are all of our anarchist/Radical members going to all of a sudden govern or advise their City Councils in a socialistic or fascist way just because the National LP Platform is not an Anarchist Manifesto?

My point is – after you watch the live web-telecast of next weekend’s LNC Meeting (which I assume will be done by an audience member due to the nature of this Meeting), I suggest that your constituents surf the Internet, look up their town’s or county’s list of Boards and Commissions, and download an application form. And then – fill it in, and send it to your Town Clerk. You don’t need any permission or any help from the National LP to do that.

In the meantime, I am going to see if the Town and Country Resort will let me sell peanuts and popcorn in the LNC meeting room, because it looks like we are going to have a sell-out crowd.

Scott Lieberman LNC Alternate, R2

LNC hires parliamentarian in Keaton removal bid

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on December 1, 2008 at 12:37 am

The LNC has hired a parliamentarian to help in its seemingly neverending quest to remove At-Large Representative Angela Keaton.  The report in question (see below) states that there is no provision in the Bylaws for removing an LNC member, as there is only a provision for suspending LNC members.  Then, it makes the leap of logic that a suspension (which is by definition temporary) will turn into a removal (which is by definition permanent) should Angela not appeal to the Judiciary Committee, or should her appeal be denied.

That is incorrect.  If there is no provision for removing an LNC member in the Bylaws, then she cannot be removed.  She can only be suspended.  Furthermore, a loss at the Judicial Committee level would mean only that the suspension had been upheld, and not that she had been removed.

While this may seem like nitpicking, since the term of suspension could technically be for the rest of her LNC term, it is not.  There is a huge difference between a suspension and a removal.  It is the difference between being suspended from school for three days, and being expelled from school.  It is the difference between showing up at work drunk and being told to go home and sleep it off without pay, and being fired for it.  There are many real-world examples of the significant difference between suspension and removal.  

In this case, there is yet another significant difference, and that is whether someone else will be permanently appointed to her position on the LNC, and whether that person would change the balance of power on the LNC.  

The report also states that the LNC needs 12 votes to suspend her.  Are there enough LNC members willing to vote against her for her to actually be suspended?  Perhaps, perhaps not.

Here is the document.  opinion-removal-lnc-at-large-1

Now, for a poll.