FW: Censure against LPNH

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 8:11:12 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Censure against LPNH

Aloha! 

I’ll be honest: I hate the opinion expressed by LPNH. It's offensive. 

But I'm even more offended and upset at the childish, leftist response against speech from this board. 

Shame on all of you.

I will explain:

1. This is the absolute worst way that we can honor Mr. Charlie Kirk, who stood for open dialogue and openly debated with leftists, whose views he (justifiably) found abhorrent, offensive, violent, racist, authoritarian, and repugnant. The blood-thirsty leftist establishment does, in fact, want to murder their political opposition.  In the days after his assassination, I refuse to be involved in a censure motion against speech. It is a moral shame on each of us that this motion is occurring now — in the hours after a man like Charlie Kirk was brutally assassinated in front of his watching young family.
2. 
   
3. I personally hate the unsupported theory that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks — it lacks evidence and incurs the worst forms of group blame. I despise it. However, even though I believe this view is gravely mistaken, (perhaps prejudiced), I recognize that many arrive at this conclusion not by hate, but by over-valuing the “qui-bono” and circumstantial questions above other evidence. We can't just act like it's "antisemitism"; that will actually make the questionable post even more popular, regardless of merits. We in the LP should know that the answer to speech we don't like isn't censorship, but more speech. 
4. 
   
5. There’s a relevant episode of South Park, where the difference between the meaning of the words “homosexuals / gays” was made explicitly clear and distinct from the word “faggot”. The episode explored how the meaning of the word “faggot” has changed over time to be used to describe various types of people as burdens or disrespectful jerks, (I.e.: like annoying Harley riders). It also made mockery of leftist pearl-clutchers who freak out at words. "Faggot" is rarely used solely as an attack against a person’s sexual identity and more toward their tendency to be an obnoxious jerk. It would be a tactical mistake of the highest magnitude to censure LPNH for making a direct reference to this socially & culturally relevant political humor. It’s like shooting one’s self in the foot. 
6. 
   
7. The Chase campaign was offensive and un-inclusive toward a large portion of the libertarian party, which resulted in some of the worst performance in LP presidential candidate history. Rather than the campaign accepting and learning from their mistakes, they are blaming their critics for their own failure to unite the LP base. This motion seems to be in that same spirit. 
8. 
   
9. Finally, I had a censure swiftly brought against me over 5 words criticizing an obviously fraudulent document, and my criticisms have proven 100% valid — perhaps even understated. Mr. Redpath's naked hypocrisy and alleged dereliction of duties is a far more urgent conduct issue than distasteful political remarks from an edgy affiliate. It is not lost on me that the timing to censure Mr. Weir's affiliate comes right after he levels serious professional criticisms at Redpath — again exposing potentially serious misconduct on this board. This response offers an appearance of selective enforcement and retaliation, even if that wasn't the intent. 

For these reasons and more, I condemn this vote and refuse to participate in something equally as damaging to our public image as anything LPNH ever posted on social media. 

I mean no offense to anyone — I recognize this may have not been the intent behind bringing this motion, but I would be remiss not to point out the context and abstain. I despise the remarks made by LPNH, and I would like to engage them — perhaps a different motion could have earned my support. 

I still contend there are simply better, more libertarian ways to deal with this issue than continuing partisanship and affiliate speech monitoring. I think this censure will only embolden other states to imitate New Hampshire — if for no other reason than to spite & protest the incompetence and hypocrisy of this body. 

When we start actually winning and being effective, motions like this will have more meaning, imho — but certainly not as our first official act in the wake of Mr. Kirk's brutal assassination. There’s no comparison — off color remarks on the right are not as horrific as actual bloodlust, murder, and hate from the left. Well over half the shit-leftards wanted to round up the unvaccinated in 2022, and to take unvaxxed kids from parents. Many on the right are still in jail for nothing more than their political speech — and now we are watching the right understandably radicalize in self-preservation.

I went to jail and was prosecuted for a year for criticizing the regime — they arrested and charged family members as leverage to force us into a deal — and the LP said nothing and did nothing to help. 

How many people are we failing out there while we squabble? 

Let's grow up, and deal with our own misconduct issues before we spend political capital that we do not have to police the state affiliates. 

Let's stop being left-tarded faggots, and let's do better. 

Mahalo! 

Austin Martin

R1

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 8:14:44 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

The benefit of such a censure is that it distances the Party from repeated damaging messaging.

It is not aimed at infighting, removing members, or distracting from other issues. 

It's us, as the Libertarian National Committee, saying "this does not represent us."

Thanks,

Keith Thompson

Region 3 South Rep

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 3:11 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 8:42:17 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

I will point out had we replaced this motion with the Trump motion, we might have achieved multiple goals, while avoiding the retaliation label, as Mr. Weir was not the chair at the time. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 4:14:44 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 8:48:50 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

Mr. Martin,

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the matter.  I understand that we, as libertarians, are big proponents of free speech.  It is important to have open dialogue in the public arena.  But when we messaging as the Party, the context changes.  Such messaging carries with it the Libertarian Party's name, credibility, and reputation along with it.

Think of it like house rules: in your own household, you get to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Your guests can disagree, but they also must respect that it is your house.  The Libertarian Party is our shared house.  It would be an abdication of duty to allow behavior under our roof to damage the image and values we seek to espouse.  Outside of our home, I would not pretend that it is acceptable to force others to "obey" our rules, however.

To hammer the point further, as a fan of the 2nd Amendment, I would love to go to a gun range with a friend.  If that "friend" didn't exercise muzzle control and trigger control, and I have already repeatedly asked them to stop flagging me after they've already had a negligent discharge, I hope you would question my intelligence if I decided to stay at the range with them.  That person is not a friend.  They are a liability. I would not deny that "friend" their right to bear arms, but I would not stand beside them as they endanger my life.

LPNH's actions do not rise to that level of life or death, of course, but they are endangering the Party, and we would be equally as imprudent to not try and protect ourselves from their reckless disregard.

Respectfully,

Samuel Bohler At-Large, Libertarian National Committee ‪samuel...@lp.org

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 3:42 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 9:03:29 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

Mr. Bost,

It would appear to me that LPNH is not the same thing as Mr. Weir.  If anything, it appears to be their Comms team that is the issue.
I didn't even address or mention Mr. Weir until he asked me to dine on his hindside.  This motion is clearly about the awful posts from yesterday, not older unrelated matters.

Respectfully,

Samuel Bohler At-Large, Libertarian National Committee ‪samuel...@lp.org

---

From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 3:48 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 9:38:48 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

Mr. Thompson, 

The invitation to disaffiliate rebuts your assertion that "It is not aimed at infighting, removing members, or distracting from other issues."  We both know it's more than that, especially given the timing. 

I think obsessing about censoring offensive affiliate speech and promoting "trans rights" is more damaging to our reputation than the remarks from LPNH, even those I despise. 

You will notice I have not moved to censure or censor any mere speech I do not like, because doing so would profoundly undermine my credibility as an actual libertarian. There should be exceptionally good reason, other than mere disagreement and sensitivity to leftist criticism. Frankly, we should never care what any leftist says about us ever again. 

Mr. Kirk's political assassination was a direct result of toxic leftist ideology, which aims to ostracize and attack the right of free expression. The antifa-adjacent & trans-radical elements in our own party may be shrewd enough to not to caught openly celebrating brutal daylight assassinations, but they openly want the LP to pander to those who would, and to have our messaging dictated by a bunch of murderous extremists who will literally assassinate moderate political figures for the "crime" of debating them openly.

I am forced (in Hawaii) to keep fighting absurd bills attempting to authorize things like interstate kidnapping — in the name of "trans rights", even as they applaud murder and embrace racism against normal Americans. They openly admit they want to influence our children and undermine parental rights, even legally defining failure to consent to life-altering (elective) medical interventions as "child abuse". 

They are openly coming for our kids, and some of you would help them do so. 

It's not equal; the right is reacting in fear, not aggression. The left is, objectively, far more bloodthirsty, hateful, and unhinged. 

You all have lost the plot. 

Trans people are demanding special treatment and accommodations — not equal individual rights. This fact fully disqualifies any of the pro-trans-ideology leftoids on this board from having a credible opinion on what does or does not qualify as "bigotry". It's shameless hypocrisy. 

Natural rights do not include the right to demand your ideological supremacy through militancy, nor to espouse violence and social ostracism against those who dare to have the opinion that there are only two normative genders. That's a biological fact. Affirming delusion is neither kind nor moral. They are shooting up schools and assassinating non-divisive moderates like Mr. Kirk, and the leftarians want us to "accommodate" and "welcome" this poison into our platform. 

No one was oppressing "trans" folks. That is pure gas. A mirage. Their movement is the aggressor. Most people don't care what adults do with their own bodies — but this really isn't about that. It's about parent's rights and the destruction of the family unit. It's all gaslighting; a sick reversal of victim and offender. This issue isn't organic, it's social engineering that's been sponsored by government and the corporatocracy, who largely support ideas like depopulation and "net-zero" societies. 

We all know how to guard against the excesses of the far right. They are sheep, naive and ignorant, prone to panic, and are easily duped into trusting wolves — but as Javier Milei explained of the leftists, "if you give them an inch, they will kill you!" 

He's right. 

The more we let the subversive ideological poison of progressive-leftism penetrate the LP, the more that we will lose our true identity; ironically engendering the growth of the far-right reaction, until it can no longer be stopped, and our movement collapses along with our civilization. We are teetering now on the crumbling brink. 

Anyone who censures LPNH immediately after the assassination of Charlie Kirk is making an optical declaration of loyalty to leftism, and a subtle vindication of the antifa-adjacent scumbags who are plunging our nation into chaos. 

Both the right and the left suck. Reject them both and embrace actual libertarianism.

Mahalo! 

Austin Martin 

R1

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 10:14 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 9:45:04 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

Good day, again.

The reason this was moved today is because the post was done yesterday. A time for response was given, and their committee elected to re-post the material in question.

I hope this clears things up regarding the timeline. This has zero to do with Mr. Kirk, and everything to do with the reasons given in the original motion.

Regarding support for "trans rights." The Libertarian Party does support trans rights, as we support the rights of all people to live in any matter in which they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the rights of others.

 

I invite you to read about our long-standing stances supporting the rights of all people, including transgender individuals:

https://lp.org/attacks-on-trans-people-are-an-attack-on-liberty/

Attacks on Trans people are an attack on Liberty There are some who will always find true Liberty for all to be too risky an idea to embrace — unfortunately, many of those people are elected officials. lp.org

In Liberty,  

Keith Thompson

Region 3 South Rep

https://LP.org/ThompsonDonor 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 4:38 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 9:54:18 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

Mr. Thompson, 

Their movement isn’t about the rights of adults over their own bodies. 

It is about their attempt to overcome the rights of others, especially parental rights, and is Marxist in nature; subversively un-libertarian. It hurts our brand to associate with Christian-killers. 

It is violent militism demanding special treatment, not individual rights.  

Please, let’s really talk about what hurts our brand credibility. 

Austin Martin 

R1

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 11:45:04 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Paul Darr <paul...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2025 6:36:44 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

The full text of the motion can be found at:

https://groups.google.com/g/lnc-public/c/gfefLjKqRMc/m/UIIhh44_AAAJ

A censure is a formal, public reprimand or expression of strong disapproval, typically adopted by a legislative body in response to misconduct that does not rise to the level of expulsion. In this case, a censure of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) signals to the public that the offensive remarks issued by LPNH do not reflect the Libertarian Party as a whole, but are limited to that particular affiliate. In effect, this serves as a strong distancing from the positions taken by LPNH. It also provides other state affiliates with the ability to point to the censure as clear evidence that LPNH’s statements are not representative of their own organizations or of the national party. Importantly, a censure does not force disaffiliation, nor does it compel LPNH to alter its expressed views, the affiliate retains its own agency.

In preparation, I have reached out to numerous state chairs to gather a broad spectrum of perspectives. Their views generally fall into several categories.

• In favor of censure: Some believe censure is the appropriate step, while others argue it does not go far enough and that disaffiliation is warranted. These states tend to feel directly harmed by LPNH’s rhetoric, particularly in terms of reputational loss and fundraising challenges.
• Neutral: These affiliates regard the matter as largely irrelevant, viewing censure as a distraction or waste of time, and reporting little to no damage from LPNH’s actions.
• Opposed: Opposition comes from three directions. Some see censure as a chilling effect on speech and equate it with censorship. Others are sympathetic to LPNH’s positions and oppose rebuke altogether. Finally, there are those who, paradoxically, reject censure not because it goes too far, but because it does not go far enough, they prefer outright disaffiliation instead.

The points I find most persuasive are these:

1. LPNH’s statements do not represent the Libertarian Party and the LNC is exercising its first amendment right to strongly disagree with the message.
2. Those statements have materially harmed the fundraising and electoral efforts of some state affiliates.
3. Censure does not strip LPNH of its independence, it may choose how to respond, and I hope it does so in a way that best serves all involved.

For these reasons, I will vote yes on the motion to censure. I want to stress that this is not a personal condemnation of any individual, including any member of this committee. Our focus should remain on the true adversary, the state, which infringes on liberty every day. Let us work together toward advancing liberty without rhetoric that clouds our message or distracts from our cause.

Respectfully,

Paul Darr

Vice Chair, Libertarian National Committee

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 4:54 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 1:53:52 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Paul Darr <paul...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Censure against LPNH

Thank you, Mr. Bohler. My concern was independent of how or why you brought the motion or its stated purpose, which I’ve stated I agree with.  

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Paul Darr <paul...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2025 2:36:44 PM