-
The LNC’s Complete Weaponizing Of The State Against Libertarians (Part 4 of 4)
The LNC is suing Michigan Libertarians because nothing else has worked. The Michigan members still reject Chadderdon’s claims. However, there are other reasons why they are pursuing this lawsuit. In short, the LNC is weaponizing the state to stamp out every rival faction in the LP once and for all.
NOTE: This is the last article in the series. To read an overview, read the first article here.
Before we get to the main lawsuit, there is one more to mention first. This other lawsuit is the reason why neither board presently has access to the bank account.
The Bank Account Lawsuit
In mid-February, the rightful LEC met to appoint an acting treasurer, Angela Thornton. Mike Saliba and Joe Brundgart then went to the bank to add Thornton to the party’s account.
While at the bank, Saliba spoke with the bank manager. He expressed concern that someone claiming to be the LPMI chair might enter his bank. The bank manager assured Saliba that it would violate the bank’s policies to add anyone to the account without one of the other signatories on the account present.
Later, however, Michigan members discovered that Chadderdon had gone to a different branch. There, he convinced the bank employees to hand the account over to him. Attorney Eric Doster had filed an update to the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) public filing system for nonprofits, updating LPMI’s leadership to match that of Chadderdon’s board. He then convinced the bank to violate its policies and, instead, use LARA as proof.
LARA is an unbelievably insecure system, and the bank was reckless for using it. A LARA representative told Saliba that, technically, someone could fill out a form, send a check for $30, and become the official chair of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. LARA does not verify this information.
Additionally, Chadderton listed Norm Peterson as treasurer when he updated LARA. Peterson had, in fact, resigned back in November 2022. LPMI did not have an acting treasurer prior to the split.
Saliba’s board (then chaired by Brungardt) appointed Angela Thorton-Canny. Angela offered to be the treasurer for both groups until the dispute was resolved. As she pointed out at the time, it is illegal to spend or receive money without one. Chadderdon committed fraud by lying to the bank about lacking a treasurer.
Saliba’s attorney sent a letter to the bank’s attorney, and Saliba continued to complain to the bank directly. Eventually, the bank decided to terminate its relationship with LPMI. The bank froze all of the accounts, but not before Chadderdon spent approximately $6,000. This was rumored to have paid for Eric Doster’s attorney fees. There is no way to know where this money actually went because this information was completely missing from the most recent annual filing, which was also filed late.
The bank preempted a winnable lawsuit by Saliba’s group and filed an interpleader case with the court instead. An interpleader case happens when property must be transferred to its rightful owner, but more than one party claims ownership. Because the bank is clearly in breach of its contract, it is pursuing this case to protect itself from liability.
Comerica has since been removed from the case entirely, and the funds currently sit in escrow while this case is still pending. Saliba’s attorney is so confident that he agreed to take no fee until they win the case.
Even though it is likely a slam dunk for Saliba’s group, the interpleader case will not likely impact the trademark case.
That brings us to the big issue: the LNC’s trademark case.
The Origin of the Trademark Case
On February 5, the LNC met in executive session to discuss various legal challenges among its affiliates, including Michigan. According to the minutes, the board took no action. Then, an email ballot appeared on March 27 following a motion by the LNC Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos and a second by the Chair Angela McArdle.
The LNC’s Executive Committee voted to authorize the filing of the trademark lawsuit, including a $10,000 allocation from the budget for legal fees. Only the Executive Committee, not the larger LNC board, voted on this matter. Voting concluded two days later.
I cannot find any public discussion about this motion before its adoption. I’m not sure if the membership has any idea how many LNC members genuinely supported this lawsuit or if they were ever properly informed of all its potential outcomes.
Then-chair, Joe Brunghadt, received a letter from McArdle on February 16, along with a cease-and-desist letter from attorney Eric Doster. The attorney representing Saliba’s group responded with a letter refuting the LNC’s claim.
So much of this lawsuit’s origins are shrouded in secrecy, as is much of the action taken by this administration. The LNC voted to form a committee in December to continue managing this lawsuit, and the committee consists of the same people who were probably doing that anyway.
The Injunction
The LNC filed the lawsuit on May 5—more than a month after the April 1 dual conventions. The lawsuit contends that eight individuals have used the trademarked name “Libertarian Party” illegally. The reason the LNC chose these eight individuals is not clear but can be inferred from the lawsuit.
The lawsuit named Mike Saliba, Rafael Wolf, Greg Stemfle, Jami Van Alstine, and Angela Thorton-Canny because they were the officers elected at the April 1 convention in Lansing. It also named Dave Canny and Mary Bazuma because they were each the chair of their respective affiliates when Chadderdon dissolved them.
Joe Brungardt is no longer an officer. However, the lawsuit also names him because he received the cease-and-desist letter from the LNC’s attorney. None of the district reps were named at all.
The judge granted the LNC’s request for an injunction but required a $20,000 bond to enforce it. If the LNC loses, the party could be responsible for paying at least this much in damages. The hearing’s transcript is available here.
You can partially infer the judge’s attitude toward this case by this hearing.
Initially, the judge made it clear she had no interest or desire to get involved in settling the dispute over leadership. The defense argued, however, that they didn’t want the court to do that at all.
Instead, they expected the opposite. They wanted the judge to view the bylaws as the party’s contract with its members, making the dispute, therefore, an internal matter.More importantly, the defense argued that the relevant trademark law, the Lanham Act, does not cover noncommercial uses. They pointed out that, while other circuit courts have ruled in various ways, Michigan’s own Sixth Circuit has yet to decide on an interpretation of how trademark law affects political organizations.
For example, the judge countered that Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange (Ninth Circuit) says offering services as a political party counts as commerce. The plaintiff referenced two other cases: the United We Stand case in the Second Circuit and a district court case in the Virgin Islands, where the RNC sued a local affiliate.
However, the Sixth Circuit also ruled on Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, stating the Lanham Act doesn’t include noncommercial speech. There has yet to be a case in the Sixth Circuit that determined whether this applies to a political party.
The Appeal
In November, the First Amendment Clinic, a nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance on free speech cases, filed an appellant brief in the Sixth Circuit Court on behalf of Saliba’s group. This appeal argues that the LNC’s trademark lawsuit constitutes an “unconstitutional attempt to silence political opponents through use of the Lanham Act.”
The legal brief points out that the plaintiff and defendants are not “commercial competitors” but rather members of the same organization. In particular, the injunction is effectively “stifling their political expression and violating their First Amendment rights” because they cannot even use the name of the party to which they belong.
The appeal also treats the LP bylaws as a contract between the party leadership and its members. As such, the only way the LNC could revoke the permission of a member’s right to use the name is with a three-fourths vote to disaffiliate.
Finally, the appeal points out that the injunction constitutes court interference in a political party—something that the courts have historically frowned upon in cases like Heitmanis v Austin.
The Amicus Brief
If there was any doubt about how far from the mark the LNC’s case is, look no further than the amicus brief recently filed by law professors at various Ivy League schools.
Any “friend of the court,” who has reason to believe there are arguments and case law that the judge should hear, can file an amicus brief—sometimes on behalf of a third party directly impacted by the decision.
In this case, the brief basically states neither side is arguing the case well. Crucially, though, the brief challenges the notion that political parties are commercial, therefore undermining the LNC’s whole argument.
Chadderdon’s group finally filed a response to this appeal on January 4. The response claimed that the amicus brief mischaracterized the stated facts in the appeal. The response spends a lot of time on the idea that the disclosure appearing on the website for Saliba’s group was insufficient to prevent confusion, essentially rehashing the same arguments made when the judge granted the injunction.
This response sounds a lot like, “Nuh-uh.”
The response also catastrophizes about what might happen if Saliba’s argument is validated by the courts. It says, “Any competitor could set up an imposter organization at will…” It suggests, erroneously, that any opponent could deny ballot access to the LNC by setting up a rival organization with similar branding.
This argument is false because election divisions have additional requirements for determining which parties have ballot access. The Federal Election Commission works similarly. Just because trademark law is not relevant doesn’t mean there are no mechanisms preventing imposter parties from forming.
This lie is perhaps the biggest one underpinning the whole case. The idea that the trademark is the only thing protecting the Libertarian Party from identity theft or from outside saboteurs wanting to set up rival organizations is just nonsense.
If the LNC wins, the likely result is far more dystopian.
The RNC and DNC could use this precedent to entrench their established elites and stamp out any rival factions that pop up. Anyone with any bit of success anywhere in any party will soon find a rival faction that these overlords will choose instead.
The LNC has made it clear that this is the plan. Any state that does not have a Mises-dominated leadership will create a splinter group with a feigned grievance. They will say they are the rightful owners of the party, and the LNC will recognize them, even if they are in the minority. They will do this in every state where they do not have control.
This weaponization of trademark law will ultimately destroy the party and make it impossible for any other group ever to have control again.
There is a lot more that I could go into, but I have addressed all the main points.
We don’t have to guess about the true intentions of Mises Caucus leadership at this point. They have actually been very transparent.
SO NOW THEN…
Several current and former LPMI veterans, candidates, and former elected officials have signed an open letter defending Saliba’s group. There is a reason they are all supporting Saliba’s group.
Consider Saliba’s remarks during his chair report at the Lansing convention:
“We have more people here, we have more former candidates here, we have more former chairs here, we have more former vice chairs here, we have more former secretaries here. We have more of the people who count here. The party belongs to those who show up and we are the ones who’ve been showing up consistently for the last fifty-some-odd years.”
The fact that more members showed up to his convention means he is right. They made their decision very clear.
Let’s finish this series with a recap and see what bad faith really looks like.
What Bad Faith Really Looks Like
Way back in May 2021, national Mises Pac Secretary David Hynes made a disturbing admission. He said that Mises is “…commandeering an institution which has already laid the groundwork in terms of things like branding and ballot access.” He also said the Mises Caucus is “teaching an extremely odious group of people a lesson…”
Mises PAC founder Michael Heise has echoed this sentiment from the beginning. He famously encouraged members to go out and convince outsiders to “become LP members for one day” to win at convention.
More recently, when a Michigan member asked in an LPMI group about possibly bringing both sides back together, Heise snapped back that this was not the desire. Instead, he wants the court case to set a precedent that would allow LNC to sue groups in other states. He aims to punish anyone that dissents.
Another brazen admission appeared in the LPMI JC’s response to Tim Yow’s appeal. When I learned about this, I viewed it as just more of the same. I figured it was not consequential enough to even include, but it really highlights how corrupt this all is.
After the JC ruled that the July 9 convention was invalid, Yow pointed out in an appeal submitted March 3 that, per Chadderdon’s opening remarks at the convention, his resignation needed to be accepted. He argued that if everything that happened at convention was invalid, then his resignation also wasn’t accepted.
The JC issued a quick rejection of this case, arguing that the acceptance of Yow’s resignation was “de facto and fully in effect” when Chadderdon brought it up at the convention. It’s a strange rebuttal, but the mean-spirited conclusion is even more telling. The rejection letter concludes with these words:
“It is for these reasons that the Judicial Committee recommends that either the LEC or the delegate body at the regular convention vote to revoke Mr. Yow’s lifetime membership. Our society will continue to be plagued by bad faith actors if these people don’t face consequences for their actions.”
Does this sound like something any Judicial Committee anywhere should be writing? Does this sound fair?
The Mises Caucus and the LNC are sharpening their knives for New Mexico, Massachusetts, and likely others. Anyone anywhere who intends to assert and defend their member rights will have their heads chopped off in the public square. They are being very open about this.
What is really going on
I even learned about certain respected people who attempted to step in and mediate but were threatened personally to back off. They are not willing to go on record, and I don’t blame them, so you can take that or leave it. It is happening, though.
Peace is not what they want. They want control.
This is why they will fail to give notice for agenda items and then claim their failure to provide notice is why it can’t be allowed.
They will pay for interpretations of the rules that always favor their in-group, treating the rules like a conveniently labyrinthian maze that only they can navigate. All who question their interpretations are labeled bad actors and frauds.
They won’t even communicate with their own board members if they are not part of the in-group. They will share information internally with caucus members weeks before telling everyone else.
These corrupt leaders will use party assets to promote caucus events and resources (like they did in Colorado, for example) but then falsely accuse political opponents of misusing party assets when they circulate a petition for a special convention.
They will shut down any debate that is not on their terms and even eject members from meetings if they assert their rights. They will ignore the opinions of parliamentarians who are not bought and paid for by them.
And they are willing to disaffiliate entire thriving affiliates just because they feel threatened.
Mass expulsions are coming, too.
Members have already been expelled in several states, but the expulsions on the horizon for Michigan will be on another level. If the JC is bragging about expelling members they don’t like, it means that members who voice the wrong opinions will have no defense.
All this ensures the general membership never gets a fair election ever again. It doesn’t matter that this is all the membership ever really wanted.
Member Abuse Continues
Some of the members of the Mises-controlled LPMI board were censured recently. They were accused of bad-mouthing LPMI and driving away members with repeated drama. Throughout the two hour special meeting (which you can watch here), these members were lied about and mischaracterized repeatedly. Numerous rules were broken.
Several Mises-aligned board members unironically accused these two members of wasting everyone’s time with drama. At the same time, they were supporting a censure that was also a huge waste of time.
In reality, the two censured members are among the most active and hard-working members that LPMI has. They just so happen to be building relationships with state legislators. In fact, they are working with veterans groups to revive Defend the Guard in the Michigan state legislature, which has been languishing in committee for years.
This kangaroo court resembles similar proceedings elsewhere in the party. In the Mises-controlled Libertarian Party of Colorado, for example, they censured a lifetime member. This member worked on three campaigns in 2022—including the highly visible CD8 race, where Dan Ward made national headlines. The thanks for her efforts was a censure because of comments she made to a reporter. This was all detailed in a video that you can watch here.
All anyone needs to do to understand how authoritarian this board has been is to watch a single meeting. Any meeting.
In one of the most recent meetings, a member inquired why the last treasurer filing was late, the member was scolded for lying. This seems like an easy enough thing to prove. According to Michigan’s public filing system, the last filing was due on January 31, but was filed on February 5.
This member also asked about the missing $6,000 that was spent just before the Comerica accounts were frozen. The treasurer chose to ignore this question completely. Instead, the treasurer called this member a liar and was not corrected. It was the treasurer, though, who lied to the board and the members about filing late.
I mention this example because they didn’t just lie—they actively rebuked the members bringing this up. Even though they are telling the truth, as they so often are, they are attacked and smeared.
This culture starts at the top and it must stop.
Chadderdon reserves the right to cut anyone off and take away their rights to speak at any time. No one is allowed to do the same to him or they will be muted or face removal. He says the person speaking is not allowed to lie, but refuses to allow them to defend themselves. Even Chadderdon’s own people routinely plead with him to not do this. Many good activists are unfairly maligned and driven away as a result.
The Future
This case has the power to rip the party apart, and at least one side could not care less. It is clear now that only one thing will end this dispute. The LNC must back off and force Chadderdon to work with the members he is attempting to disenfranchise.
If there is anything anyone should be doing about this, they should email their LNC representative and demand they drop the lawsuit.
The only reason Chadderdon can refuse to work with the other side is because he doesn’t have to. He can rule with an iron fist because no one is around to stop him. Not even the members will be able to if they get kicked out.
The only way to stop this is to make the LNC stop it. Barring this, it will go on, even if the LNC loses its lawsuit. Others on the LNC have indicated they still mean to recognize Chadderdon’s group anyway.
And if they win, the purges will begin. They will happen everywhere. Then the LP will be truly lost for good.
In the meantime, find your LNC Rep here. Let them know that Libertarians do not use the power of the state to go after other Libertarians.
And if you want to contribute to the legal defense of the eight defendants, do that here.
-
Libertarian Party Of Michigan Members Reject The Coup (Part 3 of 4)
In the months following the JC ruling, it became clear a coup had occurred. LPMI members reject the coup and side mainly with Saliba’s board.
Most members initially treated the dispute as simply an argument over rules. As a result, many believed the membership could still resolve this dispute. However, it became obvious that Chadderdon was not interested in resolving the dispute amicably.
To understand why most members still overwhelmingly support the board elected on July 9, we must go through the history.
Chadderdon Makes Himself King
The displaced board members, whose offices were allegedly vacated by the JC ruling, initially accepted the ruling in good faith. The evidence that they intended to honor the decision can be found in Brunghardt’s letter on December 4, where he informs the members of the appeal. He makes it clear that the decision has the potential to change the makeup of the board.
After the decision, some members began to circulate a petition calling for a special convention to fill the vacancies as originally intended. At the same time, some made several good-faith attempts to reach an understanding with Chadderdon about how to move forward.
However, Chadderdon moved quickly to take control of everything. The JC announced its opinion on December 19. The day after Christmas, Chadderdon took control of LPMI’s website, donor database, and social media accounts.
On December 28, Secretary Daniel Ziemba sent an email to members, citing unsubstantiated claims of NDA violations in the circulation of the petition for a special convention. It also goes a step further, though, and actively shames members that might consider signing such a petition. The email argued that a special convention would be a diversion of resources and that they should wait until the next regular convention.
Then, on December 29, Chadderdon sent a letter to all of the members, informing them that he was now the chair and sharing his vision for the party’s “new direction.” He talked about “Operation Win Local” but also included—to everyone’s shock—a link to the website of the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus.
The first real test of Chadderdon’s willingness to resolve the dispute amicably happened at the first post-appeal LEC meeting.
Chadderdon immediately rejected the petition for a special convention, arguing that the bylaws require 60-day notice. While true, the bylaws also say a special convention must occur within 45 days of the submitted petition.
The question revolves around which bylaw is “controlling,” meaning which one supersedes the other in authority.
One Michigan member posed this question in an online RONR forum. Josh Martin was one of the parliamentarians who responded, and he suggested a simple and elegant solution.
He said the party could call the convention within 45 days and, at the start of the meeting, vote on the ambiguity. If the membership agrees that the 45-day requirement is controlling, they proceed with the meeting. If they disagree, they can adjourn until a later date.
Michigan Libertarians could have rectified this ambiguity if Chadderdon acted in good faith. However, members later discovered a leaked email between Chadderdon and Mises Caucus members.
In the email, he stated he had no intention of granting the petition. Chadderdon sent this email three weeks before general members knew he would reject the petition. No arguments would have mattered.
Chadderdon rushes through LEC appointments anyway
This sequence of events led to a hostile final three-and-a-half-hour meeting on January 27, in which Chadderdon’s board officially rejected the petitions again. By this point, there were now eight vacancies on the board. This contentious meeting involved a split along partisan lines—with Chadderdon breaking every tie in his favor.
Chadderdon ruled attempts to hear a motion to have the special convention out of order, shutting down any debate. After several failed attempts, Chadderdon successfully ejected one board member who asserted his rights from the meeting. The rest of the board filled four vacancies at the meeting. The meeting can be viewed here.
Members became alarmed by what they saw. There are several reasons why members believe that filling these vacancies was done in bad faith.
First, this special meeting only had three-day notice. Despite Chadderdon making a big deal about the importance of providing ample notice to members, he seemed quick to accept a RONR interpretation that conveniently requires only two-day notice if it happens at a board meeting.
Recall that Bill Hall submitted a petition to have a special convention occur simultaneously at the July 9 convention. If the members interpreted the “within 45 days” line in the bylaws as controlling, this interpretation would have been a perfect way to satisfy that requirement. Chadderdon, however, ruled it out of order, suggesting that 60 days was absolutely necessary.
Meanwhile, the rules require only two days if the board picks the leadership without the general membership having a say at all. This loophole makes it easy for those in power to appoint their friends while making it difficult for members even to participate. This is what corrupt public officials do.
Second, the four vacancies were also not the only vacancies. Chadderdon refused to allow the filling of additional vacancies on the agenda because it lacked the proper notice—even though he was the one who “forgot” to add them. No, I’m not joking.
One board member made a motion to table the filling of vacancies until the next regular meeting so they could all be filled together, but the motion failed along partisan lines. Instead, Chadderdon’s board chose to rush it.
Finally, the biggest show of bad faith was how the board filled the vacancy for Congressional District 13. This seat was vacant at the July 9 convention and remained empty until much later when the district held a caucus and voted for Jami Van Alstine. The July 9 board respected the wishes of that district and appointed her to fill the spot. The JC ruling, however, nullified this decision because it was part of the ongoing “breach.”
However, when it came time to vote to fill this vacancy, Chadderdon’s board completely ignored the membership’s choice. Secretary Daniel Ziemba, in particular, said he felt no obligation at all to honor the delegates’ wishes at the July 9 convention or the later district caucuses. As with other vacancies, the board appointed new people to fill these spots.
Chadderdon seemed to only provide notice to fill the specific vacancies his faction had people ready to fill, and ignored the others—doing so with only three-day notice.
By this point, Mike Saliba offered to sit down with Chadderdon to negotiate a peaceful solution that worked for everyone. Chadderdon, however, rejected the offer.
Concerned members felt increasingly disenfranchised with every revelation.
Members were alarmed by everything—the leaked email, the repeated rejection of a special convention, the rapid filling of vacancies with only three-day notice, the obstructive and hostile tone toward others, and the previous history of behaviors that led to the no-confidence vote in July.
The JC Opinion Is Reevaluated
This alarm prompted several members with legal experience to reach out with new information. The July 9 board held an emergency meeting to discuss this new information, which you can watch here. According to these legally minded members, the JC is not an entity that the state of Michigan recognizes as an authority that can change the LEC.
According to section 450.2535 of the Nonprofit Corporation Act (NCA) of 1982, only the membership at a convention or the LEC between conventions can change the leadership of the LEC. They argue that, under Michigan law, no committee has the power to take action like removing board members.
This interpretation has been disputed, though. At least one lawyer looking at this case believed that the cited section of the NCA may not actually apply to LPMI. Even if it did, Michigan non-profit law may simply refer back to the bylaws of the organization. Attorney Eric Doster (who now represents Chadderdon’s group) said this during the executive session prior to the July 9 meeting.
It also gets trickier when you consider that the JC didn’t technically “remove” anyone, it simply nullified an election. It has the same effect, but the law might quibble over the term “removal.”
To add to the insanity, the LPMI bylaws also contain absurd language concerning how it views state law in general. Most bylaws contain a severability clause that automatically nullifies bylaws that are found to be in violation of state law. This is very wise and is done to protect the organization from liability.
The LPMI bylaws, on the other hand, cites the first amendment. In Article XI, it says that it “reserves the right to accept or decline the application of Michigan statutory provisions, which appear to govern its affairs.” Furthermore, it says:
“Any violations of statutory provisions by these bylaws are deliberate and will take precedence over such statutory provisions.”
They are playing with fire with this bylaw, and RONR is very clear that this is not ok.
RONR 1:5 says:
“Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of an assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law and would be null and void if in violation of such law.”
This sentiment is expressed elsewhere throughout RONR as well. It is simply wild to consider that the bylaws could be written to ignore state law intentionally.
I’m not a lawyer, so it’s not obvious to me what to make of any of this. Nevertheless, the matter is going to be settled in the court one way or the other. Whether or not the law cited above plays a role, we will know soon enough.
At any rate, I think it’s very mean-spirited and dishonest to call people frauds just because they remain unconvinced of all the nonsense I just described.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s even worth it to dig into this point any further than I already have because the legal argument is a moot point, in my opinion. As I discussed in the previous article, the Judicial Committee never had the authority to overrule the convention body. That argument still stands regardless of what state law says.
Dual Conventions
After filling four of the board vacancies, Chadderdon’s group decided to move forward with the special convention. They chose April 1, more than 60 days out, violating the bylaws’ 45-day requirement. For the convention site, they chose Wixom, which is near Detroit in the southeast part of the state.
Subsequently, Saliba’s group decided to continue planning the regular convention. They also chose April 1 because this was the originally scheduled date and within a date range that allowed them to do multiple things. They chose to meet in Lansing because it was more centrally located to accommodate more members.
Polling revealed that the signers of the original petition for a special election in Wixom unanimously planned to attend the Lansing convention. Chadderdon was holding a special convention for petitioners who didn’t even plan to attend.
The Wixom convention initially had 36 credentialed delegates. The body voted to add an additional five members that were not selected by their county affiliates as the bylaws requires. Chadderdon urged the body to approve those members, but did not explain how this was allowed under the bylaws.
A total of 42 people, including many children, participated in the Wixom convention. The Lansing convention had 74 members in attendance.
At the Lansing convention, Saliba summarized the dispute in his own words during his chair report. He describes an offer that the LNC made to combine the two conventions.
“We were contacted by an attorney representing the national party who said he wanted to broker an agreement between us and Andrew, which would be a joint convention. We offered, again, for him to come here. He declined. We offered to have a joint convention where we would be here in Lansing and they would be there in Wixom and it would be connected electronically and all votes would count. He declined.”
Saliba agreed to this offer and was willing to workshop any similar solution. Chadderdon, however, rejected it and allegedly didn’t even tell his board about the offer at the time. The LNC also offered to assist in combining the two conventions so all the members could deliberate together. Chadderdon said no to everything.
One point of contention was whether, and to what degree, a combining of the two conventions would constitute an electronic meeting. The bylaws allow for the holding of electronic meetings, but the debate is over whether or not “meeting” applies to conventions.
The matter of having electronic conventions was considered in 2021. The members decided to add a section to the bylaws concerning electronic meetings, with debate. The original proposal was amended to exclude the words “and conventions” in a close voice vote.
The reasons why members voted to support this amendment varied greatly. Some members pointed to the unpleasantness of attempting to do an electronic meeting during COVID. Others were merely opposed to the normalizing of electronic conventions, but would be ok with them in emergency situations, and that is why they supported the amendment.
There were many reasons given for why certain members made this amendment, but might have otherwise supported an offer like the one the LNC made. Both sides might wish to speculate on what those members might presently think about the LNC’s proposal. This is not a strong argument, though.
Furthermore, RONR does not differentiate between a “meeting” and a “convention” anyway. Many of the interpretations that the JC later used when describing the July 9 convention came from the same sections that describe it as a “meeting.”
Essentially, this amendment did nothing but confuse the matter. Based on the actual words, the LNC’s offer could have been facilitated. If anything, the body could have done as Josh Martin suggested regarding the other bylaws discrepancy: offer up a vote to those present on whether they wish to combine the two conventions on the basis that “meeting” includes conventions.
Once again, there were many opportunities to bring both groups together, but one side said no to everything.
Disaffiliation of Two Counties
Following the April 1 convention in Wixom, the Wixom board met to disaffiliate the affiliates in Genesee County and West Michigan. Both affiliates were disaffiliated because they would not pass a resolution recognizing the Wixom board. No other affiliates were required to sign this loyalty oath.
However, there was action on the part of Genesee County to move toward a neutral position. They would not recognize the Lansing board, and would agree not to fundraise for Saliba’s group. A member of Chadderton’s board acknowledged this in a meeting, where he urged the board to reconsider disaffiliation.
He pointed out that Genesee County agreed to take down the fundraising link and declare neutrality, but was told that it wasn’t good enough. He begged the board to seek out avenues for bringing the other side back in and resolve the dispute, rather than alienating and punishing people. Chadderdon responded, as he has done everyday since the split, by denying that there even is a dispute.
These efforts at mediation effectively ended when the LNC decided to move forward with its lawsuit less than a month later.
The Real Problem
Typically, a person in charge would face accountability for acting like a tyrant. By every observable metric, the party members overwhelmingly want Saliba’s group to be in charge. They have made that loud and clear.
Think about it. Saliba’s group had a bigger turnout at his convention despite all the cards stacked against them.
They couldn’t promote their convention in the traditional way. They didn’t control the party’s database, the website, or the social media accounts. Saliba’s board didn’t have much time to plan this convention, either. They did not even have access to the party’s bank account (more on that in the last article). Regardless, they brought nearly twice as many people to a convention on short notice, mainly using word of mouth.
These events all happened while the LNC chair, Angela McArdle, tried to intervene by emailing LPMI members to tell them which convention to go to. She also sent a letter to Joe Brunghart, brow-beating him into backing down from their convention. This letter was followed by a cease-and-desist letter.
McArdle made every effort to get members to support Chadderdon’s group. However, the members openly rejected Chadderdon’s coup.
The real problem is that Chadderdon isn’t facing consequences for wasting the party’s time and money to chase ghosts. He’s lost twice now, and the only reason he has not conceded is because he does not have to.
The LNC committed itself to an expensive lawsuit to protect Chadderdon’s claim, making him, for the time being, untouchable. He can do whatever he wants.
He is not working with members because he does not have to. This is why the LNC sued members who dared to defy the coup plotters. The LNC wants to punish these non-believers.
The next and last article will explore this drama’s greatest and final piece: the lawsuit.
-
The Corrupting Of LPMI’s Judicial Process (Part 2 of 4)
In most normal organizations, the members assembled at a regular convention have the understanding that they are in control of that organization. In the Libertarian Party of Michigan (LPMI), however, three members on a single committee overruled everyone in the room. The corrupting of LPMI’s judicial process is obvious to anyone that looks at this objectively.
Robert’s Rules Of Order (RONR) 56:68 clearly says that organizations have a right to interpret their own rules. Yet LPMI members are apparently not allowed to exercise this right at a convention. It must first meet the approval of the clergy.
The LPMI Judicial Committee (JC) effectively told all the members that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
This power disparity is the origin of the factional dispute that is ripping LPMI apart right now.
This article is going to explain how the hell this all happened.
THE JULY 9 CONVENTION
On June 13, the LPMI Executive Committee (LEC) failed to pass a resolution following the national convention in Reno. This resolution condemned the removal of “we condemn bigotry as morally repugnant” from the national platform. The next day, LEC received resignations from District Representatives Brandon Warzybok and Jami Van Alstine. The day after, Chair Tim Yow and First Vice Chair Ben Boren also submitted their resignations to the LEC.
In Warzybok’s resignation, he makes it clear why he resigned when he did. He said:
“I believe I owe it to the members of District Six to make this decision now, and to thereby give them the opportunity to select a new Representative at the July Convention.”
Three days later, Andrew Chadderdon ruled through email that he auto-ascended to the position of the chair as a result. The next day, LEC member Dave Canny notified the LEC that members would present a motion to the convention body for a no-confidence vote against Chadderdon. In addition to citing legitimate reasons for Chadderdon’s removal in the resolution, he also believed that the delegates deserved to have a chance to choose a new chair.
The resolution stated many of Chadderdon’s violations. They include (to paraphrase):
- Failing his fiduciary duty as political director to recruit and train candidates.
- Failing to properly notify the state of Michigan of the July 9 convention until someone else did it for him.
- Failure to provide notice to members to fill vacancies at the convention.
- Failing to foster a cooperative working environment for the board by weaponizing parliamentary procedure, threatening dismissal from meetings, and stifling votes.
- Creating a conflict of interest regarding legal representation.
Chadderdon initially worked with Canny on this motion, preparing to defend his record and let the members vote. He later changed his mind at the convention.
On June 29, Bill Hall submitted a member petition with 51 names requesting a special convention to occur at the same time and place as the regular convention on July 9. Chadderdon rejected this petition because it lacked the proper notice.
Four days before the convention, the LEC met with Attorney Eric Doster in executive session. He argued that, unless the bylaws are violated, actions taken by the convention body are “unassailable.”
Doster did not claim to know about notice requirements. However, he did say that if business items are normally communicated to members via an agenda published within days of the convention, that it should be sufficient.
At the convention
Chadderdon asserted in his opening remarks at the convention that he would not hear any motions to elect officers. He argued that such motions would violate notice requirements found in the bylaws. A member appealed the chair’s ruling, but Chadderdon refused to hear a vote on this appeal. Instead, he offered to step down as convention chair. The body voted to replace him with Joe Brungardt, who presided over the rest of the convention.
After adopting an agenda, the convention body elected Brungardt as first vice chair. They then passed the no-confidence vote, removing Chadderdon as chair permanently. Brungardt then auto-ascended to the position of chair. Elections to fill the remaining vacancies followed.
They did it in this order because this is what the attorney advised could be done in the executive session. You can watch the full conversation and executive session meeting here. The bylaws that were in effect at the July 9 convention can be found here.
One member pointed out that, at this point, Chadderdon changed his previous decision about auto-ascending to chair. Chadderdon now claimed he was just “acting chair” while remaining second vice chair. The chair, who originally cited lack of notice as the reason why convention delegates couldn’t vote for leadership, didn’t notify members of this decision.
Many members grew suspicious of what they regarded as parliamentary gamesmanship that was clearly not in the party’s best interest. Only one person spoke against the no-confidence motion during debate, but that person agreed that the convention could and should fill the board vacancies. Nevertheless, the vote to remove Chadderdon passed 38-18. The convention can be viewed here.
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE APPEAL
More than four months later, Andrew Chadderdon filed an appeal with the LPMI JC. During the JC hearing, Chadderdon explained that he waited four months because he did not want to jeopardize candidates whose candidacies could be challenged by their opponents or the state if they won.
Chadderdon’s appeal argued his removal at the July 9 convention violated notice requirements, as did the filling of LEC vacancies. The JC ultimately granted Chadderdon his appeal, mainly siding with and repeating, nearly verbatim, the opinion of Jonathan Jacobs—one of three parliamentarians who submitted an opinion on the appeal. (Jacobs is an important figure whom I’ll write about more later in this piece.) The appeal can be read here.
Various Opinions Presented
Two other certified parliamentarians, Josh Martin and the Libertarian National Committee’s parliamentarian Richard Brown, disagreed with all or most of the appeal.
Additional comments and opinions were submitted by Donna Gundle-Krieg, Greg Stempfle, Jami Van Alstine, Joe Brungardt (with 14 signatories in total), Joe Brungardt by himself, Bill Hall, Kyle McCauley (written and video), and Scotty Boman.
All of these additional opinions opposed the appeal for various reasons. The JC appears to have completely ignored these opinions.
A concurring opinion was also produced by JC member Robert Roddis, stating that Chadderdon’s removal was invalid because no evidence was presented against him. However, the opinion fails to provide any rule that actually requires any evidence to be presented for this type of motion. It amounts to nothing more than grandstanding, so I won’t be going through it.
The Nonsensical Final Ruling
The final ruling on the appeal is important enough to examine, though, but it is a confusing mandala of nonsense.
Some LPMI members only support Chadderdon’s board because they think the JC ruling makes him “technically correct.” Otherwise, they are upset by how his faction continues to hurt the party.
Chadderdon argued three points in his appeal:
1. The July 9 meeting was a special convention.
2. The no-confidence vote was out of order because it was not properly noticed.
3. The filling of LEC vacancies was not properly noticed.On the first point, the parliamentarians all disagreed with Chadderdon.
Jacobs argued that the candidate-nominating convention was a unique meeting that was neither regular nor special because the relevant section in the bylaws does not specify. The bylaws define those two classifications elsewhere, he argued, and “things of the same class” are “thereby prohibited,” according to RONR 56:68. In other words, nothing else can be considered a regular or special convention if it is not found in the relevant bylaws section that defines those two things.
The other two parliamentarians disagreed. The bylaws declare that candidate-nominating conventions must occur during even years. Martin and Brown both argued that candidate-nominating conventions are, therefore, “regular” even if the bylaws don’t say so because they happen at regular intervals.
During the JC hearing, one member brought up an email exchange between Secretary Daniel Ziemba and another member on June 30. The member asked why Bill Hall’s petition for a simultaneous special convention could not occur, and Ziemba said the July 9 convention was a regular convention. He pointed to RONR 9:13, which says that a special meeting happens at a different time than a regular meeting.
Chadderdon and JC Chair Connor Nepomuceno were on this email thread but didn’t correct Ziemba’s interpretation. They all seemed to be under the impression that this was also a regular convention. At some point, they realized they needed to retroactively define the meeting as something other than a regular convention.
There’s a reason for this. The designation of the convention as a regular meeting has ramifications on the rest of Chadderdon’s appeal. In his opinion, Parliamentarian Josh Martin stated if the July 9 convention was not a special convention, many of the other facts stated in the appeal are moot.
For one thing, the designation means that Chadderdon’s removal was entirely in order. Even Jacobs mentions in his opinion’s footnotes that if it were considered a regular meeting, the convention members could have considered the no-confidence vote because it was properly noticed. Perhaps this is why he needed to invent, in Jacobs’ words, a “unicorn convention” interpretation.
If it was a regular convention, it also draws into question officer elections. The bylaws say in Article III, Section 2:
“At each regular convention, following the selection of those officers of the Executive Committee elected at large, the delegates from each Congressional district shall caucus to select one person residing in that district to serve as the Congressional district representative for that district.”
The question, of course, revolves around notice. In the end, Martin concluded that Chadderdon’s removal was valid, but the officer elections were probably not.
The national LP’s parliamentarian, however, argued in his opinion that custom and LPMI’s right to interpret its own bylaws are valid defenses.
Richard Brown’s Opinion
Richard Brown’s opinion seems to reconcile everything that happened at convention in a manner that ought to have put the entire matter to rest.
First, he addresses the rules of interpretation. RONR provides that every organization has the sole power and right to interpret its own bylaws (56:68). Specifically, Brown wrote:
“If the LPM [sic] has interpreted its bylaws to permit the filling of vacancies at conventions without previous notice, that interpretation will control unless and until a different interpretation is reached (23:11).”
During the JC hearing, Brown argued that filling vacancies without notice is not permissible under RONR “except as provided by the bylaws.” He says that if a group historically interpreted a bylaw one way, then that “custom” is authoritative until the membership is asked to officially rule on that interpretation and decides on a new interpretation.
Before the July 9 convention, the custom was to announce business details at a regular convention in an agenda published within days of the convention. The established precedent was that officer elections took place at regular conventions in the past without being mentioned in the original convention announcement—the “Call.” Greg Stempfle brought this point up in the JC hearing, and gave specific examples of when this happened in the past.
At the July 9 convention, Chadderdon ruled a proposed agenda out of order because it violated notice requirements. The body then appealed the chair’s ruling. When Chadderdon refused to hear this appeal, the members replaced him with a new convention chair. The body then voted to adopt the agenda that included officer elections, reaffirming their interpretation of the bylaws and recognizing custom. Upon hearing the objection from Chadderdon, the membership instead agreed that officer elections were in order.
Passing Blame
The bad actors all conveniently played hot potato about who was to blame for failing to notify members about the no-confidence motion. Canny submitted the motion to the board nearly three weeks before the convention. It did not go out until Canny sent it out, following some hemming and hawing by the LEC.
Two members that spoke at the hearing asked Nepomuceno to recuse himself because he was also the communications director who failed to notify members of Canny’s no-confidence motion. When asked during the JC hearing why the notice didn’t go out in time, Nepomuceno said he took his direction from the chair and the LEC, even though the secretary directed him otherwise.
Nepomuceno’s interference can also be seen in emails. In one email, he threatens to cut off a fellow board member’s access to the thread because he asked whether the board intended to vote to add Canny’s motion to the agenda, or if it would have to be heard from the floor.
Chadderdon also shifted blame to the LEC, saying that a meeting wasn’t called to take action. Never mind that he alone had the duty to call such a meeting.
None of them provided any rule that requires the LEC to vote on such action, either. They clearly just chose not to.
If you think about it, this logic implies that the LEC has the right to not take action. This means the members never have the right to make a no-confidence motion (or any other motion that may hold the board accountable) if the LEC has anything to say about it. This is what the bad-faith actors are arguing.
In case you are not seeing the obvious: The same people who argued the no-confidence motion was out of order because of notice requirements are the same people who failed to notify members in the first place. You can watch the JC hearing here.
The JC’s Authority
There is also the question of the JC’s authority to nullify actions taken at a convention. Brown did not believe the JC had the authority to nullify an election. This opinion might seem like common sense, but I’ll explain why it’s technically correct.
Brown points out that the LNC’s bylaws give two specific examples of actions taken by a convention body that the JC may overturn. Comparatively, the LPMI bylaws do not have any specific examples. He argues that the JC only has the authority to decide cases relating to the LEC, not the membership at a convention.
This is a reasonable interpretation because RONR states that an organization has the right to interpret its bylaws. Unless the bylaws dictating the JC specify exceptions where the group can overrule actions taken at a convention, it is reasonable to assume the JC cannot. In general, RONR says that a committee cannot overrule the body that created it.
More importantly, if it is to do anything at all, it needs to be spelled out. In particular, RONR 56:44 says this:
“In any event, if a standing committee is to have standing authority to act for the society without specific instructions, if business of a certain class is to be automatically referred to it, or if some other rule of parliamentary procedure is affected by the committee’s assigned function, such procedure must be prescribed in a provision of the bylaws or in a special rule of order, establishing the committee by name.”
RONR 50:8 says something similar. Brown likened it to assigning a committee to find a new building for an organization. If that committee is not specifically empowered to, say, sign a contract, then it does not have that power.
The LPMI bylaws section regarding the judicial committee is worded simply. It says that it “shall decide cases involving alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions.” According to RONR, the only thing the JC is empowered to do is decide. It does not have the power to execute any decision or carry out its remedies because no such procedure exists in the bylaws section for doing so.
In other words, the JC does not have authority to overrule a convention body. Even if it did, it cannot doing anything about it unless there are details written in the bylaws describing the process for doing so.
In the end, none of this mattered, though. Despite this careful nuance, the JC rejected Brown’s opinion.
The final JC opinion is incomprehensible and doesn’t seem to exist alongside the other opinions.
The JC opinion only references Martin’s opinion once. This was merely as a means to attack former LPMI Chair Joe Brunghardt’s input. It references various arguments made throughout the course of the appeal, but the JC opinion does not directly reference Brown’s opinion at all. It ignores it completely.
The ruling may as well have been written at the same time as the appeal.
The Mises Caucus’ Parliamentarian
The person at the center of Chadderdon’s defense is Jonathan Jacobs (aka “JJ”). Before the Mises Caucus takeover of the LNC last year in Reno, JJ provided parliamentary training to the Mises Caucus.
Parliamentary training is not unethical. It is also unknown if he was paid for this or how much he may have been paid. However, during that training, he specifically taught Mises Caucus members how to perform what he called a “parliamentary coup.”
He specifically taught them how to manipulate the rules and use parliamentary tricks to game the convention. For example, he talked about “clinching,” where a previously adopted motion is “reconsidered” immediately so that it can pass again. This makes it impossible ever to be heard again at the same meeting.
According to the resume he submitted to the JC, he has given this training before. He has also written about the subject many times. His article, “The Art of Coup d’Etat,” appears in the October 2005 edition of Parliamentary Journal.
This training is not merely an ironic attempt to educate vulnerable members of how the rules can be abused. It is a step-by-step lesson for those who want to abuse them.
Jacobs possibly came up with the entire plan for wresting control away from party leaders (and the two-thirds majority of members who elected them) by weaponizing the JC.
He confirms in his opinion’s footnotes that he advised Chadderdon prior to the July 9 convention. It’s possible that Jacobs told Chadderdon what to say to overturn the convention. This theory might explain why Chadderdon changed his opinion about auto-ascending to chair at the last minute, even though he issued an email ruling to the contrary.
In the case of Michigan, the Mises Caucus paid Jacobs $350.00 for “services rendered.” This payment actually put him in violation of the National Association of Parliamentarians because they believed he was retired. Jacobs had to pay back dues to remain certified.
Connor Nepumoceno—the Mises Caucus state coordinator and the JC chair who ruled in favor of Chadderdon’s appeal—issued the check. Members also told me that Nepumoceno did not disclose his caucus affiliation when they selected him for the JC. Nepumoceno disputed this in a concurring opinion that he submitted later.
Bill Hall wrote in a blog post that some Mises Caucus members “concealed their Mises Caucus membership to get elected” at a convention back in 2021. Had those members known how these bad actors would abuse their positions, they might never have been chosen.
Moreover, Nepumoceno states proudly in his opinion that he does not believe the JC should be expected to be without bias. He says “this notion that the Judicial Committee is or needs to be unbiased is absurd.” It is one thing to point out that no one is completely without bias, but quite another to disregard its relevance in judicial matters. It is another, still, to brag about one’s bias openly.
The incestuous nature of the players involved here is impossible to ignore. It explains why they took the actions they did in the aftermath of this appeal.
Mixed Reactions Among Members
Many members recognizing Chadderdon’s board do so because they believe he is “technically correct.” Members don’t have to like the maneuver, but it was all done within the rules—they believe. The corrupting of LPMI’s judicial process does not invalidate the result, they might argue.
Even if this was true, Chadderdon and his cohorts played games with members that wanted a do-over. If this dispute is simply about doing everything properly and by the book, then why all the tricks?
The truth is that this was already tried. When Dave Canny originally submitted his no-confidence motion, Chadderdon worked with him to ensure everything was correct. It wasn’t until Chadderdon appealed to the JC that it became clear that he acted in bad faith.
Some believe Saliba’s group could have simply attended the Wixom convention and reclaimed their leadership roles there. However, additional actions occurred following the JC’s ruling that had the appearance of bad faith.
In the next article, I will cover the fallout of this JC decision and its culmination with two competing conventions.
-
Why The Hell Is The Libertarian Party Suing Members In Michigan? (Part 1 of 4)
The story of what is happening to the Libertarian Party of Michigan (LPMI) is bizarre. The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) is suing eight members on one side of a leadership dispute in a very baffling intellectual property lawsuit. The Libertarian Party is suing members in Michigan and it’s clear that the lawsuit could potentially destroy the party.
Most LP members have no idea what is actually happening, and it will take several articles to unpack this strange scandal. The damage of this lawsuit is far-reaching and undeniable.
Earlier this month, Michigan-based former U.S. Representative Justin Amash announced that he may leave the Libertarian Party (LP) to run in the Republican primary instead. This move comes after years of him advising the party’s new leadership to prioritize electoral success over activism and urging the LP to stop edgelording and gatekeeping.
For context, the Mises PAC took over the national Libertarian Party nearly two years ago, in addition to many state affiliates. The result has been nothing short of a disaster. The stated purpose of the Mises PAC was to bring the “Ron Paul revolution” home to the LP and return the party to its radical roots. In practice, however, the new leadership is destroying everything it touches.
Many onlookers inside and outside the party have watched with dismay—or glee, in some cases—as the LP becomes a shell of its former self. They claim that it has been reduced to a free-for-all of grifters, bullies, trolls, and bigots. The evidence of xenophobia, corruption, incompetence, and general neglect is now so well documented that anyone interested in truth would be morally suspect to look away or deny it.
Most of the members I spoke to in Michigan tell me that, in the beginning, this was never about the Mises Caucus. Some members now supporting the defendants in the LNC’s lawsuit were originally Mises Caucus members. At least a few of them think this litigation is the result of a select few power-hungry individuals who don’t necessarily represent the whole Mises Caucus.
There is a concerted effort being made to silence, bully, smear, and otherwise mistreat anyone that does not toe the line.
Nevertheless, at least two-thirds of the LPMI membership feel disenfranchised by the shenanigans. The LPMI saga proves that even if non-Mises members recruited more, it wouldn’t matter because the Mises Caucus will take power any way they can, by hook or crook.
Most LPMI members were (and still are) a bit bewildered that three partisans on a committee overturned all the things they did at a convention. And why wouldn’t they be outraged?
The Libertarian Party is suing members and those members are aware of the narrative created about them within the party. For example, Mises-aligned moderators have kicked out members from the national LP Discord for criticizing the lawsuit, even though the courts have not resolved the dispute yet.
Unlike what has happened in states like New Hampshire and Massachusetts (where entirely different legal entities competed with one another), LPMI is and has always been one legal entity. The dispute in Michigan concerns the rightful leadership of LPMI’s Executive Committee.
Explaining how this occurred will require several articles because the story is complicated. If you don’t have time to read everything, at least finish this article, and you will have a basic understanding of what happened.
This is what happened in a nutshell: A minority of bad actors in Michigan, protected and empowered by the LNC, cheated themselves into power, continue to rule like tyrants, and are working tirelessly to prevent anyone from taking their power away from them.
If you want to understand why it happened and who is responsible, follow through to the next article. I will provide plenty of details and receipts in the following articles as well.
THE TL;DR
Before the July 9, 2022, annual candidate nominating convention, the LPMI Executive Committee tried and failed to pass a resolution condemning the removal of lines in the national party platform concerning bigotry. Two Executive Committee members, Chair Tim Yow and First Vice Chair Ben Boren, and two LEC district representatives resigned. Second Vice Chair Andrew Chadderdon then auto-ascended to chair.
At least one of these resignations stated the reason for its timing: to give the delegates at the upcoming convention the opportunity to select new leadership. These resignations resulted in disagreements over how board officers’ appointments and elections could occur either in official meetings or at the July convention.
During an executive session a few days before that convention, the board met with attorney Eric Doster. He advised that, sans bylaw violations, the actions of a convention body are “unassailable.” On this legal advice, the convention body ultimately passed a vote of no confidence against Chadderdon, chose a new chair, and filled the remaining vacancies.
Then, more than four months later, Chadderdon filed an appeal with the LPMI Judicial Committee (JC). His appeal argued that proper notice didn’t occur for his removal and the board officer elections—meaning they were, therefore, out of order. Three parliamentarians provided their opinions; two were all or mostly opposed to the appeal, and one was in favor. The JC ultimately voted to support the appeal.
The decision claimed that the board before July 9 was now the rightful board and that everything that occurred at the convention was null and void. Initially, the July 9th board accepted this and began a petition to hold a new special convention for officer elections. Chadderdon immediately seized control of most of the party’s digital assets.
Chadderdon rejected the petition for a special convention to fill vacancies and argued that 60-day notice was required. Three weeks later, Chadderdon’s board had another special meeting to set a date for a special convention but, instead, filled the vacancies as a board. Instead of filling these seats with the nominees chosen by the delegates at the last convention as a sign of good faith, they chose candidates supported by the Mises Caucus. (These decisions took place during a meeting that only had three-day notice.)
Then, several concerned members with legal experience approached the LEC with new legal information about corporate law. The state of Michigan authorizes only legally incorporated bodies, such as the LEC, to take specific actions, such as changing leadership.
This legal argument has been disputed, but the LNC’s parliamentarian, Richard Brown, also argued that the JC did not have the authority to overturn decisions made at a convention. He believed that the JC only had the power to “decide” judicial cases, but did not have the ability to do anything beyond that.
If the LEC recognized the JC’s decision, the proper course of action would have been to first call a special meeting to officially take that action. Instead, Chadderdon took control of everything before the LEC even had a chance to meet.
In light of this information, and Brown’s interpretation of the JC’s authority, the July 9th board called a special meeting to reevaluate the findings of the JC appeal. They concluded that the decision did not have the effect of automatically changing the LEC leadership.
They decided to resume party business as the board elected in July and called an April 1 regular convention in Lansing. Meanwhile, the Chadderdon board still planned to have its special convention on April 1 in Wixom.
The former July 9 board chair, Joe Brungardt, received a cease-and-desist letter two weeks later from the attorney representing the LNC. This was the same attorney, Eric Doster, who advised the LPMI board that electing officers and a vote of no confidence would be in order at the July 9 convention.
Around this time, current July 9 board chair Mike Saliba became aware that Andrew Chadderdon had also tricked the bank into handing him the three LPMI bank accounts. Saliba’s attorney asserted that the bank was in breach of its contract with LPMI by doing this. The bank responded by freezing the accounts and submitting an interpleader case with the courts to sort out the rightful owner of the accounts. The case is still pending.
LNC Chair Angela McArdle then sent an email to LPMI members stating that they would be recognizing the convention in Wixom and urged members to attend that one. Despite this email, the Wixom convention only had 42 members in attendance (some of whom were children). The regular convention in Lansing, however, had 74 members in attendance.
Despite the overwhelming support for the Lansing convention, the LNC filed its trademark lawsuit a month later. Since then, several third parties have entered the lawsuit due to its potential to create a precedent. In November, an appeal was officially filed in the Sixth Circuit court by the defendants. Third-party legal professors (some from Harvard, Stanford and others) also filed an amicus brief. This brief took no sides, but its arguments mostly agreed with the defendants.
Aside from the legal dispute, the toxic culture within LPMI has coarsened even further in recent days.
WHAT’S GOING ON NOW?
In the nine months since the lawsuit began, a few bad actors have attempted to bully, smear, and ostracize those wishing to weigh in on the dispute in the “wrong” way. A court order forbids the eight LPMI members from saying much of anything to defend themselves publicly. If it hadn’t been for the widespread censorship efforts in the party, I might not have felt as compelled to write this.
The Chadderdon board presently controls LPMI’s social media, website, CRM, email, and other digital accounts. Chadderdon’s board has already disaffiliated two affiliates, West Michigan and Genesee counties, because they wouldn’t pass a loyalty oath–something not required for other affiliates. At least four LPMI members have had their memberships officially suspended. Chadderdon and his friends continue to research and pursue options for punishing members.
On the bright side, recent bad-faith actions by Chadderdon to protect his fiefdom have caused some members of his board to turn against him.
The most egregious abuse of authority is Chadderdon’s kangaroo courts, which he created to expel members. Some members of his board didn’t even know that he was trying to expel members until Joe Brunghardt leaked an email informing him about his trial.
This action caused some members of Chadderdon’s board to turn on him recently. They want to make a no-confidence motion at the convention.
However, Chadderdon is making this as difficult as possible.
For example, he is encouraging out-of-state supporters to buy an LPMI membership raising the number of signatures required for members to request a special convention. This move compliments bylaws changes passed at Chadderdon’s regular convention in August.
Those changes included increasing the signature-gathering threshold from 10 percent of the membership to 30 percent. They also eliminated the requirement that special conventions must be called within 45 days, but replaced it with nothing (so the LEC can technically wait as long as they wish). They really did their homework to make it as difficult as possible for the membership.
The bylaws also now defines the candidate-nominating convention as a “special convention” instead of the more appropriate “regular convention,” meaning no business can be heard besides what was mentioned in the Convention Call. This move was likely by design as well. (I’ll address more on this later.)
In the meantime, the LNC is potentially destroying the lives of lifelong activists through endless litigation.
As it stands, the LNC is suing eight individuals, not the legal state-recognized board, for trademark infringement. These individuals do not have liability protection, and this lawsuit could affect them personally if they lose.
The LNC alleges that these rogue members are masquerading as the LPMI board. The LNC’s actions could destroy the lives of these eight members if they continue using the courts to go after them.
There is hope, though.
LPMI members recently met online in an unofficial open forum to discuss how to move forward. Saliba addressed the members directly about the lawsuit, the restrictions on how they can speak about the dispute, and various other details. The floor was open to any members wishing to offer a path forward.
Strangely, Chadderdon attended this meeting but only lurked and refused to answer questions. In any case, members shared a concensus: attend Chadderdon’s convention next month because this is the convention that the LNC will recognize.
Even though four members have had their memberships revoked already, others intend to show up. The only business that will be heard is the selecting of delegates to the national convention.
Members shared different ideas of what to do when they get there, but they do agree that the most important thing is to show up. So if you are a member in Michigan, one of the best things you can do to help is to show up to the convention next month.
Keep in mind that attempts will very likely be made to disenfranchise members for failing to follow every step. Some have already complained that they haven’t even received their invite to participate in their county caucus, or that the LEC gave them very little notice.
There are rumors that they intend to disqualify county delegates that have not already paid their dues. Traditionally, members can pay at the door at the state convention, but they may not honor this. It is imperative that you find out when your next county caucus is, especially if you live in an unaffiliated region.
Hopefully, they do not resort to such desperate tactics. However, if you do plan to attend, make sure to verify every single thing.
In the best case scenario, a new LNC agrees to drop the lawsuit. At the very least, LPMI members can force the LNC to explain the sweeping rejection of the shenanigans.
If you are a member in good standing in Michigan, the best thing to help move LPMI past this and save the party is to show up next month.
If you are outside Michigan and wish to help, there are some things you can do.
You can contribute to the legal defense fund here. Although the First Amendment Center is doing a lot of work pro bono, they are not the only ones provide legal help in this case. Many have already donated, but the case is far from over and they can use all the help you can get.
You can also email your LNC representative here. Based on the poor treatment of LNC representatives who have raised members’ concerns, emailing them may be a waste of time. However, the best possible outcome is for the LNC to drop its lawsuit and stop the bleeding.
If you are a national member in good standing, or a lifetime member, you can join an active derivative lawsuit against the LNC. This type of lawsuit occurs when members of an organization believe that its leaders are mismanaging assets and failing in their fiduciary duties. You can join that here.
In the next article, I’ll go into detail about how this drama started with three hyper-partisans corrupting the Judicial Committee.
-
What Koppelman Gets Right About Libertarianism: “Burning Down The House” Review
Andrew Koppelman’s new critique of modern libertarianism is far more relevant than anyone might realize. His book, Burning Down The House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted By Delusion And Greed, manages to adeptly parse the very difficult topic of individual liberty. What Koppelman gets right is that it shows why market liberalism is on the rise.
In particular, it makes two main points. On the one hand, it reinforces the success story that is free markets. Second, it challenges the notion of when the protection of individual rights actually causes harm to others. The book is very clearly more concerned with the latter.
This discussion is far from irrelevant. The reconciling of these two positions, if possible, could permanently deprive the right of its arguably most crucial ally: the business community. The Democrats have already taken notice of this shift.
For example, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez recently made a splash by drawing attention to the harms of over-regulating sunscreen. During an extended interview, Jared Polis also told John Stossel that he supports free markets—advocating for drug legalization, eliminating Colorado’s income tax, and many other policies. Big business is slowly cutting ties with the political right—a place now dominated by culture war issues.
Interestingly, libertarianism has not only played a role in bringing this about but is also the solution.
Koppelman argues that a very corrupted variety of libertarianism has taken hold on the political right. He cleverly opens the book with the very famous story of Gene Cranick whose house burned down while firefighters watched. He paid his monthly fee for privatized fire protection services for years, but one year he forgot. As a result, the entire neighborhood, together with firefighters present, all watched his house burn down.
This story is not merely a metaphor. It actually happened. Glenn Beck and others justified the inaction of the firefighters. Policymakers, Koppelman argues, later used the same rationale during the debates over Obamacare, climate change, and other issues.
It would be one thing for Koppelman to merely attack libertarianism by using this example. He clarifies early on, however, that better versions of libertarianism do exist.
Libertarianism takes multiple forms. The kind that let the house burn down is a corrupted variety. Libertarians once defended free markets, and the inequalities that markets inevitably generate, without claiming that those inequalities are deserved or that people’s needs count for nothing.Free markets were valuable precisely because they offered the most promising path toward satisfying the needs of the worst off. It’s commitments did not include letting houses burn.
This modern libertarianism, he argues, is merely a mutated form of liberalism. This classical liberalism argues for a guarantee of people’s individual freedom to live as they like. Much of what Koppelman describes throughout the book sounds a lot like the pragmatism that I’ve written about on this blog.
Moreover, he describes a genuine transformation in his own thinking about capitalism and he credits Friedrich Hayek with this change.
The best thing Koppelman writes in the entire book is a single paragraph about the power of libertarianism to bridge the divide in American politics. Far from being fringe, libertarianism is both the source of—and solution to—America’s ongoing division.
The story of the corruption of libertarianism is a sad tale with a hopeful ending. It has pitted decent Americans against one another, the left suspecting the right of blind rapaciousness, the right suspecting the left of malicious envy. The encouraging news is that they are less far apart than they think. Libertarianism is most persuasive when it shares the commitments of the political left. The disagreement is not about ends. It concerns strategy. Too many on the left fail to grasp that the original libertarian strategy has been massively vindicated. The capacity of markets to alleviate poverty has been so overwhelmingly demonstrated in recent decades that it is silly to keep denying it. Too many on the right fail to grasp that unregulated markets cannot deliver a livable world. Moderate libertarianism can bridge some of the bitterest divisions of contemporary American politics.
Most of the book consists of an almost surgical decoupling of classical liberalism with modern radical Rothbardian libertarianism. Most chapters seem written for a non-libertarian audience. Nevertheless, this exercise in deconstruction is both refreshing and challenging.
For example, while libertarians often talk about the maternalistic nature of the Nanny State, Koppelman considers the pros and cons of paternalism. He considers the extent to which it is necessary for the state to intervene and “protect” its citizens. Minarchist libertarians have no issue with this when it comes to law enforcement and defense, but what about consumer protection and the environment?
On the other hand, Koppelman gets a bit lost in the middle. His chapter, “Tyranny,” is an unfocused and largely unnecessary examination of the philosophies of Rand, Rothbard, and Nozick. His arguments elsewhere regarding the tough luck doctrine—the house burning down, for example—are sufficient to make the point.
However, the purpose of the book becomes clearer with the final main chapter, “Moochers.” The first half of this chapter describes how corrupted libertarianism influenced the Obamacare debate. The second half focuses on Charles Koch’s money and its influence on environmental policy.
This chapter very much feels like the reason this book exists.
His prior arguments about paternalism were far more convincing than the things he says here about Obamacare. It feels like he is forcing a round peg into a square hole. For me, it is in the unconvincing dismissal of arguments against a mandate.
John Stossel was one of the few vocal libertarians praising certain aspects of Obamacare at the time. I do agree that everyone overlooked some of the more pro-market ideas in the law—the implementation of exchange markets, in particular. However, the mandate was always a deal-breaker and not just for libertarians.
The alternative proposal of high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions was presented by the GOP even though it is basically a safety net. Alternatives like this are given scant attention in Koppelman’s book, though.
He also skips over the major objection the Freedom Caucus initially had to Paul Ryan’s replacement proposal. The caucus was not happy about the manner of its adoption.
Paul Ryan prevented any debate from occurring on the floor of the House. Instead, he sought to pass a replacement proposal by making deals behind closed doors. Nancy Pelosi has continued the practice.
It began in May 2016. Paul Ryan shut down amendments to “protect” Republicans from tough votes.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) January 3, 2021It might be the case that Koppelman’s notion of acceptable paternalism could be found in the alternative healthcare proposals floating around at the time. We may never know. At least some of his indignation during this first half of the chapter seems misguided, though.
This chapter transitions into the second half with a story, not unlike the one that opens the book. It also involves fire.
A young couple falls victim to an exploding gas pipeline which happens to be owned by Charles Koch. Koppelman acknowledges very briefly that accidents do happen, but he nevertheless uses the horror of the incident to make his point about how Koch’s money influences politics for his own personal benefit.
He fairly considers that Koch is an idealist with every right to use his money to bring about a world he wishes to see. At the same time, though, he condemns him for also appearing to do so for selfish reasons.
Koppelman may think that Koch is the apotheosis, so to speak, of corrupted libertarianism. He may also just be an example of it. If it is the former, then Koppelman’s thesis has less impact and can be easily countered. If it is the latter, however, then the diagnosis of the libertarian movement is much less grim.
It seems like Koppelman is largely on the right track, but he is still using the language of the left to make his calculations. That is not a criticism. He is one of the only people on the political left who has been willing in recent days to give libertarianism more than a cursory glance. It is telling that when he did so, he found that it was not all bad.
Even if Koppelman’s priorities are too limiting and short-sighted, Burning Down The House is worth a look for liberals and libertarians alike.
-
Why Russia Really Blew Up The Khakovka Dam
Two weeks ago, Ukraine struck a huge blow to the Russians by blowing up Putin’s Kerch Bridge. This bridge was the main artery supplying the Russian war effort in Crimea, and this time the Ukrainians are taking credit. By contrast, enough evidence shows that Russia blew up the Khakovka Dam. It may seem like old news, but these events are related.
Lingering conspiracy theories regarding the Khakovka Dam continue to cloud any understanding of Russia’s role in Crimea. Russia built the Kerch Bridge when Putin failed to secure a land route through the Donetsk region after he illegally annexed Crimea in 2014. Putin’s disregard for civilian life on the peninsula has been evident throughout the war.
The Khakovka Dam was a critical piece of infrastructure along the border between Ukraine and occupied-Russian territory. Both sides have pointed fingers since it blew up over a month ago, but the accusations have never been equally valid. Obviously, the Russians blew up the Khakovka Dam.
This dam was hydroelectric and held back a reservoir the size of the Great Salt Lake. It also provided crucial cooling water for a nearby Russian-occupied nuclear power plant, which is now at risk.
Growing evidence shows that the situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant could be much worse than anyone might think. Experts say the facility is fairly secure, but it is not immune to power failure and it does sit right in the middle of Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive.
It is also not a stretch to suggest that the Russians may even have plans to weaponize the Zaporizhzhia NPP. This is why it is necessary to take a careful look at how and why Russia destroyed the Khakovka Dam.
Russia is waging ecological warfare on Ukrainians. It has become clear that Russia blew up the Kakhovka Dam to thwart Ukraine’s counteroffensive, demoralize Ukrainian troops, and punish Ukrainians in general for the conflict.
The dam provided irrigation to more than a million acres of farmland. Conveniently, Russia used the bombing of the Kerch Bridge as an excuse to back out of a grain deal that guaranteed Crimean exports. Putin’s plan might have been to sacrifice Crimean grain exports to improve its own export position. Putin seems willing to sacrifice anything to win this war.
Flooding from the breach resulted in the evacuation of more than 40,000 people, including the recently-regained city of Kherson. The water is contaminated with 150 tons of machine oil and lead to a Cholera outbreak in the Kherson Oblast and Crimean regions.
This bombing is an act of ecoterrorism, and Russia is almost certainly to blame. Russia weaponized the dam more than once before and blew it up with explosives planted deep inside the structure. The evidence is overwhelming.
MILITARY STRATEGY
The first question to consider is Russia’s motive. It is no coincidence that this happened right at the beginning of Ukraine’s long-anticipated counteroffensive. It is also easy to see how this sabotage seriously disrupted plans for this counteroffensive.
After driving Russian forces out of Kherson, Ukraine pushed the newly occupied borders south of the Dnieper River. Amphibious landings along this river would have been a significant part of any counteroffensive. This strategy would especially take advantage of islands in the river to help move equipment across.
The draining reservoir would also likewise be impossible to traverse with vehicles because it would leave behind a soupy, muddy bed for months. Since the dam was destroyed, Ukrainian forces have crossed the river, but without equipment and logistical support, the counteroffensive stalled.
It doesn’t mean the river will be forever impossible to cross with the necessary resources, but this mass flooding event effectively stopped any plans Ukraine may have had to advance.
Ironically, the Ukrainians also used the strategy of blowing up dams earlier in the war, which proved to be quite successful militarily. Near the beginning of the war, the Russians surrounded Kyiv, and they were closing in fast. They almost lost the city until the decision was made to blow up a dam. The Russians could not advance, giving Ukrainians the opportunity to drive them out. The village that endured the floodwaters became known as the village that saved Kyiv.
So, blowing up dams as a military strategy does work, and it clearly worked in both cases. For Russia, though, destroying this particular dam was even better than that.
With the lower Dnieper River now off the table as far as a counteroffensive goes, the Ukrainian forces were limited to coming down through Zaporizhzhia. If they can break through there, they can effectively cut off all the Russian forces in Crimea from the Motherland. If this is successful, a final push into Donbas could finally drive Russia out of a region they have held since 2014. Blowing up the Kerch Bridge also accomplishes this goal.
However, with Russia no longer concerned about holding the lower part of the river, they could concentrate all their forces on the Zaporizhzhia region. That’s what they’ve been doing, and it’s why the Ukrainian counteroffensive was much more difficult than anticipated. For now, the Russian strategy of moving resources to the Zaporizhzhia region has paid off.
Ukrainian forces have faced never-ending landmines, and the Russians have improved their fortifications and tactics. The anticipated fighter jets, rumored to be on the way, will not be able to help until after the counteroffensive.
Add to this the fact that Russian forces were reportedly shelling survivors of the flooding as they attempted to flee. Russia’s motive for blowing up the dam could not be more apparent.
WARNING SIGNS
Over a year ago, Ukrainian President Zelensky warned that Russia might blow up the dam. Ukrainian intelligence believed that the dam was mined with explosives in April 2022.
In November, following their humiliating retreat, the Russians blew up the Ukrainian side of the dam to prevent Ukrainian forces from advancing.
Then in December, a video surfaced of a Russian soldier bragging about placing bombs inside the dam.
"We mined everything on Kakhovka HPP. So, they'll f**king blow it up and will wash away Ukrainian Armed Forces on the other side" – a Russian says. The video was published on 10 December, 2022. pic.twitter.com/4Eoh0nK0dM
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) June 6, 2023Another Russian soldier, Yegor Guzenko, has repeatedly bragged online about massacring Ukrainians. After the dam blew up, he not only praised its destruction but suggested Russia should do the same thing to several other dams further up the Dnieper River.
Russian soldier Yegor Guzenko, who is fighting in the Kherson region, admitted that Russia blew up the dam in Nova Kakhovka to stop Ukrainian army
— Денис Казанський (@den_kazansky) June 6, 2023
He also said that the Russian army should also blow up other dams on the Dnieper pic.twitter.com/h0xpkXUZSBUkrainian intelligence also posted an audio clip of two Russian officers discussing the dam, saying “our sabotage group” blew it up.
On top of this, the Russian government passed a strange law forbidding the investigation of hydroelectric structures damaged during the war. The strangest part about this law is that they passed it a week before the Kakhovka Dam was destroyed.
CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE THEORY
The most prominent competing theory, presented by Ryan McBeth on his Youtube channel, suggests that the dam collapsed naturally. According to this theory, the various attacks on the dam throughout the war corrupted its integrity, leading to its total failure.
This theory has an alluring plausibility, especially given that there is some evidence to back it up. For example, satellite imagery shows part of the dam was destroyed prior to its collapse. It also indicates that water levels had reached a point where water was coming over the dam everywhere.
Though he still blames Russia for the dam’s failure, McBeth’s argument—that this collapsed dam is the result of incompetence—falls apart upon further review.
First, the satellite photos show damage to a roadway above the dam but not damage to the dam itself. This roadway likely collapsed because of missile strikes the previous year, but it would not necessarily affect the integrity of the dam itself.
The New York Times recently analyzed satellite photos and new images of the wreckage. Water levels have fallen far enough to expose the foundation. This analysis shows the foundation completely destroyed, meaning bombs would have had to be placed inside.
McBeth’s scour hole theory is also debunked in that article. McBeth argues that Russia likely only opened the spillways closest to the Russian side of the dam out of fear that Ukraine might shoot at gantry crane operators closer to the Ukranian side.
Using the same spillway over time, McBeth argues, created a scour hole that corrupted the integrity of the dam at its foundation. However, experts point out in the NYT article that the dam’s design included a concrete apron at its base that would have made this unlikely.
NYT is just the latest article showcasing the opinions of experts who increasingly believe this dam collapse resulted from an internal explosion. Experts don’t agree that this was natural. In fact, most of them suggest the opposite.
“The images I have seen show two breaches, either side of a structure. Were the breach to be caused by excess upstream water level there would only be one. Thus natural causes are highly unlikely. Shelling by Ukraine is highly unlikely as it would need to get massive explosives close to the foundations.”
Professor Chris BinnieThe dam also didn’t fail at its weakest points, which would have been the control gates and the navigation locks. The part of the dam that failed was internal, which is why experts argued that an explosion inside the structure destroyed the dam.
Furthermore, the Kakhovka Dam was designed in the 1950s to withstand a nuclear attack. Any bomb capable of destroying the dam would have to be sizable, which explains why Norwegian seismographers picked up the explosion that destroyed the dam.
Finally, the crumbling infrastructure theory does not account for the most important question: the timing. How do you explain the timing of a tactically important dam collapsing less than 48 hours after the Ukrainians begin their highly anticipated counteroffensive?
There is more evidence that the Russians knew how to weaponize the dam.
People have pointed out that water levels were at their highest point just before the dam collapsed. Moreover, McBeth suggested this is part of what led to the dam’s collapse.
But look at the graph again.
Source: @UKikaski The mapping of water levels shows that Russia tested a manipulation of water levels in November. They let out a massive amount of water in February during a Ukrainian amphibious assault upstream near Enerhodar. Then, in the weeks leading up to the primary Ukrainian counteroffensive, they let the water rise back to its maximum level again. Less than two days into the offensive, the dam was destroyed.
There is simply no accounting for this level of coincidence. It is more rational to conclude that the Russians weaponized this dam and destroyed it when it was the most strategically advantageous.
OTHER MYTHS
Most evidence pointing to Ukrainian forces does not hold up to scrutiny. Instead, it is a hodgepodge of poorly reasoned wish fulfillment.
“Ukraine blew it up with missiles“
The only way Ukraine could have destroyed the dam was with missiles because Ukrainians had no physical access to the dam. However, the only missiles they have capable of causing any damage are High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) missiles.
HIMARS missiles simply cannot destroy a dam built to withstand a nuclear attack. By comparison, Ukrainian forces attacked the Kherson Bridge for weeks with HIMARS and barely made a dent.
“Ukraine said they planned to blow it up“
Another argument involves Russian General Sergey Surovikin’s statements accusing Ukraine of wanting to blow up the dam. Others point to the statements of Ukrainian General Andrey Kovalchuk in the Washington Post, where he allegedly admits plans to blow up the dam.
This is very misleading, though.
First, Kovalchuk made these statements when Russian forces still occupied Kherson. Blowing up the dam after Ukraine regained this territory does not make sense.
Second, Kovalchuk does not say he wanted to destroy the dam. They tested whether poking holes in the floodgates could raise the water levels of the lower river without flooding nearby villages.
“Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages. The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off.“
Third, even if they tried, it could not have destroyed the dam’s foundation like we now know to be true, so it’s a moot point.
“Most of the people affected were on the Russian side“
One of the biggest myths assumes that most people hurt by this were on the Russian side. Crimean agriculture depended on water from the Khakovka Reservoir, which is now empty. When he took over Crimea, Putin made a big deal out of restoring Crimean infrastructure.
However, as the Ukrainians see it, all the people in Crimea are Ukrainian. Life in Crimea has also not improved under Russian control; instead, Russian rule has only invited more conflict and destruction.
The recent revelation that Russia will be backing out of the Black Sea Grain Initiative is further evidence that Russia may have never cared about the people of Crimea. It’s bigger than that, though.
Crimean grain exports were part of a deal that provided food stability to at least 400 million people worldwide prior to Russia’s invasion in 2022. Russia’s exit from the grain deal, however, caused wheat prices to skyrocket.
As Putin continues to destroy Ukrainian grain silos, Russia’s deputy U.N. ambassador Dmitry Polyansky listed several demands needed to restore the deal. Russia’s plan is to blackmail the West with food insecurity in the developing world.
Russia’s food blackmail is such a humanitarian crisis that Pope Francis weighed in, urging Putin to restore the grain deal.
Putin might have wanted to control this regional bread basket. However, if Russia loses this war and must relinquish this control, it is all too happy to scorch the earth on its way out.
Putin playing Western-backed exporters against his own is not new. Recall that he once offered a bailout to Ukrainians after attempting to hurt them at the same time with sanctions on Ukrainian gas exports. Similar shenanigans contributed to the Euromaidan Revolution in 2014, which was definitely NOT a coup.
Committing ecocide in a region of the world Putin controls is not as irrational as expected. Putin is playing the long game, and he will never let a crisis go to waste. Moreover, he will consider any strategy even if it harms his own people.
RUSSIA’S PATTERN OF PSYCHOTIC BEHAVIOR
Finally, Russia continues to demonstrate a pattern of very bad behavior. There is no aspect of this war in which Russia is not willing to sink to new lows. The Kakhovka Dam explosion is an act of ecocide, and it’s not unusual.
Since the Kakhovka Dam explosion, Russia has already blown up another dam in the Donetsk region, which is the third dam they have destroyed. Notably, the other dam was near Kryvyi Rih, which was militarily insignificant. Residents there believe that the main reason Russia blew up the dam was to hurt citizen morale.
Russia’s ruthlessness and cruelty reflect in how it chooses to fight this war.
One example involves land mines. Ukraine has joined the international Mine Ban Treaty, which opposes the use of anti-personnel landmines. Russians won’t stop using them, though. They use them so often, despite being banned by the Geneva Convention, that their insistence on using them amounts to psychological warfare.
Another example involves ammonia. Russians seem determined to destroy the environment with deliberate attacks on ammonia sources. They attacked an ammonia pipeline in Kharkiv and an ammonia plant in Sumy. Ukrainian intelligence has also learned that Russia has placed bombs inside a Crimean ammonia factory.
Perhaps most concerning of all, though, is the news about security risks inside the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhya Power Plant.
In the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Tweeted a very alarming message about Russia firing on ZNPP.
Russian army is firing from all sides upon Zaporizhzhia NPP, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. Fire has already broke out. If it blows up, it will be 10 times larger than Chornobyl! Russians must IMMEDIATELY cease the fire, allow firefighters, establish a security zone!
— Dmytro Kuleba (@DmytroKuleba) March 4, 2022Experts at the time urged a more tempered view, pointing out that ZNPP is much safer than Chernobyl ever was. Still, they did mention one big concern: electricity. Without power, the reactors cannot be cooled down.
This exact issue came up very recently in a statement released by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The statement confirmed that ZNPP was without power for 8 hours due to a “technical failure.” This could mean a number of things but sabotage cannot be ruled out.
The statement also confirmed rumors that anti-personnel landmines were placed around the facility in violation of safety guidelines. They also requested access to the rooftops over a few of the reactors but were denied.
As with the Khakovka Dam, Zelensky has warned the international community that Ukrainian intelligence believes that Russia is planning to commit a terrorist act using the power plant. They have even considered a scenario where Russia blows up ZNPP immediately after handing it over to Ukraine.
There has been example after example of crimes against humanity during this war. Some of these concerns might be overstated or even baseless, but it is not irrational to form these fears in light of Russia’s recent history.
Putin seems willing to do anything and everything to win.
STOP THE PROPAGANDA
Russia’s past crimes against humanity are too numerous to count. Russia’s current list of war crimes is growing, and ecocide is merely one thing to add to the list.
Putin just decided to skip an economic summit in South Africa because the ICC still has an arrest warrant for kidnapping Ukranian children. The massacre of Ukrainian citizens in Bucha has been so well-documented that the Wikipedia article seems to go on forever.
Despite all of this evidence, bad actors muddy the waters and misrepresent facts.
Oliver Stone says the Russian people have never been better off than under Putin. Noam Chompsky says Russia is fighting humanely. RFK Jr. says Russia “acted in good faith” when they invaded Ukraine. Plenty of other celebrities and politicians have shared similarly absurd and dangerous perspectives. On and on it goes.
One of the sources of misinformation that consistently spreads propaganda about Russia is the Libertarian Party. It did not hesitate to reject the idea that Russia blew up the Khakovka Dam, suggesting it was corporate press propaganda.
The corporate press is just as adamant about Russia blowing up the Kakhovka dam as it was about Russia causing the inflation crisis, stealing the 2016 presidential election, and sabotaging the Nord Stream pipeline.
— Libertarian Party (@LPNational) June 7, 2023This has to stop.
At a certain point, willful ignorance of the facts makes you complicit. Lies spread faster than the truth, but the truth is available to anyone.
Protecting certain lies eventually becomes a choice.
NOTE: Special thanks to David Wiley for his help with this article. He can be found on Facebook here.
-
The Libertarian Party Is Turning Into A Cult
Libertarians were trending on Twitter again today. For the indoctrinated, this proves that edge-lording works. To the rest of us who value sanity, the Libertarian Party is turning into a cult right in front of us.
The reason Libertarians are trending on Twitter is not because of an offensive and racist Tweet from the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. It’s trending because of the response.
At the time of my writing this, that post has just under 3,000 likes. Nina Turner’s response, on the other hand, is going viral.
This is racist and anti-Black. Period.
— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) July 19, 2023
In no way is advocating for free insulin comparable to chattel slavery.
Shameful & uneducated. pic.twitter.com/ad1jMJSdvwThe issue here is not policy but messaging. LPNH really believes that in order to convince more “normies” that positive rights are tantamount to chattel slavery, you simply must start by telling a black woman to pick crops.
If this was the plot of a movie, the audience would know who the bad guy was in five minutes. No need to put him in a black hat or give him a maniacal laugh.
The reactions are wide-ranging.
Some think this is sheer incompetence because even from a marketing standpoint it’s bad optics. Others think it’s trolling and merely insincere.
Most, though, are calling it what it is: racist.
These days, racism is often overt. Things like race realism, “blood and soil” populism, and historical revisionism have all been on full display in certain pockets of the Liberty movement. This has been well documented for anyone who will listen.
Overt racism doesn’t go very far on its own, however. Racism does, however, spread like wildfire when it involves a heavy amount of subterfuge. The rationalization for it always has a grain of truth, and it has been defended by LP National.
What is obvious to the normies still seems to escape so many “libertarians” in the movement.
LP National is leading by example here. They want followers of the LP to rationalize the racist Tweet. For some, you don’t have to tell them twice. They are practically tripping over themselves to do so.
They want to “educate” normies that are drawn like moths to a virtue-signaling flame. The LP wants to provoke outrage and it is being intentionally racist to do it. They believe—quite cynically—that the only way to have a conversation about positive rights is to evoke anger and hatred.
Let’s go deeper, though.
Yes, this Tweet is racist. Yes, the Meghan McCain Tweet was cruel. And yes, the LPKY Tweet was anti-Semitic. And yes, the irresponsible LPCO likely got banned because it condoned violence multiple times.
What is the point of all of this? The occupiers of the LP say it’s to get attention, and you can’t argue that it’s getting attention.
Why didn’t this logic apply to Gary Johnson, though? When he had his Aleppo gaffe, that also got attention. If all we wanted was attention, why did that bother these people at all?
It really is quite insidious what is going on here.
Here’s the truth: Some thought leaders in the Liberty movement have discovered that bigotry is useful.
The part that should truly concern everyone out there fighting for real Liberty is the degree to which ordinary activists are unwittingly participating in all of this.
Sometimes, it seems to play out like a cult leader having a private conversation with a concerned disciple that is questioning the teachings. Devoted followers may often feel lost when their leaders do and say bad things.
But they always make room in their corrupted hearts for rationalization. They must because it’s all they have.
They will long for some words that might calm their inflamed conscience. Because most people are rational, ordinary people will see things as they are. It is only when trusted titans of thought and action decide to speak that this natural process of critical thinking becomes corrupted.
The best part for a disciple is the feeling of superiority. A once-struggling follower only grows more devoted when they are granted permission to side with ugliness and hatred.
Then on top of that, cult leaders tell them that they are victims. They present them with evidence of their persecution. In case after case, the evidence shows that their tribe stands accused of providing safe harbor for bigotry.
“But you are not like that,” the cult leader tells the faithful disciple. “How could anyone call you a bigot? How could they?”
Those are very powerful words. For most, it’s probably even true.
A clearly racist Tweet like the one that trended today is a test. If an LP member’s instinct is not to condemn but to rationalize, then that person is in a cult.
-
The Coup In Ukraine Is Actually A Complete Lie
A once-thriving anti-war movement’s scattered remains left behind a vacuum now filled by wolves in sheep’s clothing. The bevy of falsehoods and misconceptions about the war in Ukraine needs to stop. A careful look at all of the available evidence shows very clearly that the CIA did not perform a coup in Ukraine.
The situation in Ukraine is very complicated and the rampant circulation of propaganda does not help. Comedian Jimmy Dore recently repeated this bizarre theory in a Tweet that was shared by the Libertarian Party’s Twitter account.
War Pig Rachel Maddow will never tell her audience the CIA instigated a Coup of Ukraine in 2014 & installed a puppet aligned with actual Nazis & then blew up the Nordstream Pipeline. Instead she lies about Peace activists so her audience stays Pro-War: pic.twitter.com/UxAeSNIdMs
— Jimmy Dore (@jimmy_dore) February 21, 2023Rachel Maddow was unexpectedly accurate when she reported on the poorly attended Rage Against The War Machine rally in February. Even though she conspicuously failed to mention the Libertarian Party’s involvement—thank God—she nailed it with this report. She correctly called it a “pro-Russia” rally and rightly poked fun at an anti-war demonstration that favored the primary aggressor in the war. Oddly, many thought leaders in the LP and the Mises Caucus are not backing down from this pro-Russia narrative.
I was among the many big- and small-L libertarians planning to attend. It’s about damn time we resurrected the anti-war movement. As the rally approached, however, things didn’t seem right.
More and more pro-war speakers (including a convicted pedophile) joined the event, a Libertarian National Committee member resigned in protest of the rally (among other things), the Radical Caucus dropped its sponsorship, and so on. The rally was also a breaking point for former presidential candidate Vermin Supreme, whose public rebuke of the LP was featured in Newsweek.
All of this is par for the course with the new group running the LP, but I did not expect them to so boldly back the Kremlin and its messaging. This is leaving many Libertarians scratching their heads. Why would they do this? Why the insistence on defending Russia?
Libertarians are understandably skeptical of institutional intelligence originating from inside the US government. Unfortunately, this knee-jerk contrarianism has also led to the unquestioned consumption of actual Russian propaganda. Of course, correcting any propaganda is a daunting task, but the 2014-Ukraine-coup conspiracy theory underpins so many of the misrepresentations surrounding the Ukrainian War.
This conspiracy is now viral. Elon Musk even prominently repeated it.
That election was arguably dodgy, but no question that there was indeed a coup
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 25, 2023This conspiracy theory has a lot of background, but here is a simple summary.
THE OFFICIAL THEORY
In 2010, Ukraine elected Victor Yanukovych to be its fourth president in an election that international observers declared fair and “truly competitive”. Yanukovych acted on behalf of Ukrainians who supported Russia, but meddling Western influences undermined this peaceful election.
When a referendum to get Ukraine to join the EU failed, US diplomats decided to influence public sentiment and orchestrate a coup. Evidence of this plot surfaced through a leaked phone call between EU Secretary of State Victoria Nulund and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. The phone call was leaked to the media on February 14, 2014.
Additionally, as early as 2013, Western diplomats like the president of the National Endowment for Democracy made a case for supporting the independence of former Soviet states. NED poured millions into Western-backed projects in Ukraine and poisoned the well of Ukraine-Russia relations.
Finally, all of this politicking came to a head with the Maidan protests. Far-right groups, working in conjunction with Western interests, committed many acts of violence and held parliament at gunpoint. Yanukovych was forced to flee for his life so they could hold a rigged election the following May and install a Western puppet.
There are countless details to examine, but those are the highlights of this conspiracy theory. Most of it is false or misleading, though. More than anything, it is a lie of omission. This theory simply lacks context.
THE BETRAYAL OF YANUKOVYCH
The first piece of misinformation to untangle involves Yanukovych’s support for Russia. In 2010, he campaigned on a platform of a multivector foreign policy that dealt with both Russia and Europe.
A year into his term, he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, making it clear that he had every intention of pursuing an alliance with the EU—something Ukrainians wanted. A 52% majority of Ukrainians wanted to make relations with Russia a top foreign policy priority, above relations with Europe. By 2012, that sentiment completely flipped.
Public sentiment about foreign policy priorities likely shifted because of rampant corruption, authoritarian policies, and a series of very bad deals for Ukrainians.
Yanukovych started his term by signing the controversial Kharkiv Pact. The new treaty would grant Russia a 25-year lease to use Sevastopol as a naval base in exchange for a 30% reduction in gas prices from Russian imports.
There were several problems with this treaty, though.
First, this pact is an extension of the Partition Treaty of 1997 and its follow-up, the Friendship Treaty. Boris Yeltsin signed both of these treaties three days apart. The Friendship Treaty is also known as the Big Treaty because it officially established borders and formally recognized Ukrainian sovereignty. Boris Yeltsin was far more friendly to the existence of an independent Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, does not even acknowledge the existence of an independent Ukraine. This sentiment poses an existential threat to Ukrainians, so a treaty granting an extension on this Russian military base in their own backyard was understandably alarming.
Second, the nature of this treaty’s ratification in the Ukrainian parliament is controversial. When they voted to ratify this treaty, the largest faction—the Party of Regions—blocked the podium and demanded an immediate vote. As a result, the treaty’s ratification was chaotic—fistfights, smoke bombs, and even egg-throwing. According to an analysis by Taras Kuzio, which examines the many problems with the 2010 agreement, the pact was also illegal for several reasons. In particular, the analysis says:
“The Stability and Reforms coalition that voted for the 2010 treaty is illegitimate because it rests on only 220 deputies from three factions, with the remaining twenty-five deputies having been blackmailed, bribed or coerced to defect from the opposition. The 2010 treaty was railroaded through parliament without parliamentary or public discussion and after ignoring votes against it in three important committees (two of which had negative majorities). The treaty also violates the constitution, which bans permanent military bases, and it was not discussed prior to a vote in the National Security and Defense Council as the constitution requires.”
Finally, the pact didn’t last because Russia reneged on the deal and raised Ukrainian gas prices anyway. The pact also forced together Ukrainian authorities and the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which had been experiencing escalating skirmishes just before Putin nullified the pact in 2014. Meanwhile, the Russians were already preparing an alternative naval base for when the 1997 Partition Treaty expired. As a result, this appeared to be complete acquiescence to the Kremlin.
Add to this the fact that Ukraine was already saddled with a bad 10-year deal, negotiated by Yanukovych’s predecessor, which made Ukraine more dependent on increasingly expensive Russian gas. Putin also manipulated negotiations by imposing sanctions on Ukrainians. At the same time, he offered them one poisoned solution after another.
One of those solutions would be an offer that Putin didn’t want Ukraine to refuse. It was an all-too-convenient new proposal to merge Ukraine’s largest national oil company, Naftogaz, with the Russian exporter Gazprom. This merger was an all-around bad deal for Ukraine. As analyst Volodymyr Olemchenko put it:
“The question is not really about the price of gas, but politics. Russia simply is using the gas contract to achieve its political ends—bring Ukraine into its zone of influence, drag us into the Customs Union.”
In each instance, Ukrainians felt increasingly played. All of this deal-making left Ukrainians anxious about their economic future. To make matters worse, Yanukovych’s authoritarian streak was starting to show. Ukrainians and outsiders alike saw him as a growing threat to press freedom that meted out “selective justice” on political rivals and responded to protests with laws designed to stamp out free speech. The coup theory also overlooks Yanukovych’s ties to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and many more well-documented displays of corruption.
When protestors hit the streets, they had a very clear picture of who Yanukovych really was. He was not the guy to usher in the ideals of freedom and democracy that the Ukrainians increasingly wanted. Instead, his goons carried out ruthless and bloody violence the night parliament rejected the EU deal. This violent show of force led to more than 100,000 people showing up the next day. The people were done with Yanukovych and his corruption.
THE MAIDAN PROTESTS AND THE “COUP”
The first Maidan protest was initially small in number but that changed when Yanukovych responded with excessive force.
The claim that Nazis and nationalists led the protests is mostly false—at least in the beginning. Though they did contribute to the violence, the far-right was not much of a major driver throughout the protests. Furthermore, claims that the government in Ukraine is a Nazi government are woefully inaccurate. The most successful far-right party, Svoboda (also known as the All-Ukraine Union), saw its greatest success before the 2014 revolution. Its support has since plummeted from 38 seats in the Rada in 2012 (out of 450) to only one today.
Yanukovych’s increasingly authoritarian policies inspired the protests. These policies included deploying snipers to take out protesters. The strangest thing about these snipers is the varying theories regarding who they are.
Some early reports suggested they may have been simply other protesters. However, one study, conducted a year later, came to a pretty wild conclusion. It claimed that the snipers were far-right extremists creating a false flag situation to gin up support for overthrowing the very government the protesters were already fighting. Many conspiracy theorists cite this study and act like it proves that the snipers were hired by opposition leaders.
However, this study was not peer-reviewed and has been largely debunked. It seems to have been politically motivated and lacks rigorous fact-finding altogether. At best, it leaves the topic of the snipers’ identities up for debate. Nevertheless, several public figures and institutions, including the Kremlin, have made a serious effort to pin this on the opposition—the question is why?
Consider that this theory became popular because of a leaked phone between two foreign diplomats. Predictably, the Kremlin-backed news network RT (formerly Russia Today) was the first to carry the leaked phone call. In fact, they did so a day after Putin first floated the idea that the snipers were provocateurs. Isn’t that interesting?
Several Ukrainian officials also said that Yanukovych himself ordered the killings. Given how much violence the police had already inflicted on citizens before the appearance of snipers, this seems much more likely.
The brutality of Yanukovych’s regime was so concerning that several human rights groups investigated the events surrounding the Maidan protests. These groups included the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which produced a pretty damning report, and the International Criminal Court.
After investigating the period leading up to and including the Maidan protests, the ICC concluded:
“…while the acts of violence allegedly committed by the Ukrainian authorities between 30 November 2013 and 20 February 2014 could constitute an “attack directed against a civilian population” under article 7(2)(a) of the Statute, the information available did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that the attack was systematic or widespread under the terms of article 7 of the Statute. The Office however noted that serious human rights abuses had occurred in the context of the Maidan events, and expressed its willingness to reassess its preliminary analysis in the light of any new information.”
While that preliminary report ended there, ICC opened an official investigation last year after 39 State Parties—ICC member nations—referred the situation in Ukraine to the ICC’s prosecutor. The investigation is ongoing and will revisit their preliminary findings to evaluate the causes of the protest. (As a side note, ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin last month for war crimes involving children.)
Yanukovych’s violent crackdown eventually led a Ukrainian court to convict him of treason. It’s simply absurd to conclude that the main driver of these protests was anything other than Yanukovych’s authoritarian actions.
Before the investigations and trial, Yanukovych and the opposition leaders had reached a deal, mediated by European diplomats, the day after the “Sniper Massacre”. The real fly in the ointment for the coup theory is that Western diplomats encouraged the protesters to take this deal.
If you go back and listen to that leaked phone call, Nuland and Pryatt seem to be pushing for this. They speak about “…some kind of outreach to Yanukovych,” suggesting that they wish to include him in negotiations. It would seem strange to talk about working with Yanukovych if the actual goal is to replace him. Why would they do this if they wanted to overthrow Yanukovych?
In reality, protesters wanted nothing less than Yanukovych’s resignation. While authorities carried out most of the the violence, some protesters responded in kind. One ultranationalist, known for political violence, urged supporters to storm the president’s residence if Yanukovych wasn’t gone by the next day. Many protesters cheered this. There was blood in the water, to be sure.
The protesters did storm the president’s residence and attacked some members of parliament. This happened despite members voting to remove Yanukovych, who fled the country shortly after that.
While all of this was going on, Russia illegally invaded and annexed Crimea. Putin declared ownership of Crimea through executive fiat in a referendum that the rest of the world considered invalid.
The United Nations overwhelmingly rejected Russia’s illegal annexation with a resolution that passed with a 100-to-11 vote. The Russian delegation argued that the annexation was the voluntary result of citizens wishing to reunite with Russia. The UN majority did not agree and regarded the annexation as an affront to the sovereignty of a nation. For better or worse, the European Union responded with increased sanctions on Russia.
In other words, ignore Yanukovych’s authoritarianism as well as Putin’s invasion of Crimea and focus, instead, on Western influencers. You simply must believe that protesters took to the streets because of Western meddling and not because of all of these other things going on around them. Even so, one question remains: Who are these puppet masters and how much influence did they exert on Ukrainian politics?
THOSE WESTERN INFLUENCERS
The list of organizations influencing Ukrainian politics could be the subject of its own article. This list includes the United States Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy, and many others.
The Financial Times wrote about some funding from Ukraine’s own oligarchs. However, reporter Roman Olearchyk also wrote:
“…it becomes evident after spending just a few hours on Kyiv’s main square that they are not the core backbone of the movement.”
The Financial Times also mentions the instrumental role the Kyiv-based organization New Citizen played in starting the protests. New Citizen is led by Oleh Rybachuk, the former chief of staff for Victor Yushchenko—the darling of the Orange Revolution. Yushchenko initially lost to Yanukovych in the 2004 election, during which he survived an assassination attempt that left him disfigured. Ukrainians claimed there was election fraud and this led to the Orange Revolution. The Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered a second election at Yushchenko won.
Since then, Rybachuk has been involved in a number of Western-oriented NGOs in Ukraine. He is also a favorite of NED, the EU, and NATO. Yanukovych’s regime targeted one of Rybachuk’s NGOs, Center UA, with claims of money laundering. This claim was clearly a politically motivated attack on his associated group, Stop Censorship, which arose in response to Yanukovych’s assault on press freedom.
Rybachuk’s groups indeed received much of their funding from the West. For example, the Kyiv Post reported that of Center UA’s $500,000 in funding for 2012, 54% came from USAID and 36% from the Omidyar Network (a foundation owned by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar). NED provided some additional funding, too. The Omidyar Network also gave $335,000 to New Citizen in 2011, citing government transparency as the primary reason.
There’s that word again: transparency. It’s a word that pops up often when talking about NED and USAID, though not for the same reason critics think.
Even when reporting on where the money is going, organizations that openly spread conspiracy theories, like the Ron Paul Institute, appear to miss the point. RPI wrote:
“The State Department controls the prime funding sources for non-military intervention, including the controversial National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which Washington created to fund covert and clandestine action…“
RPI and other organizations talk about NED and USAID as if these purported “covert and clandestine” organizations don’t have annual reports, which anyone can easily read online. Conspiracy theorists are one Freedom of Information Act request away from revealing these “secrets” to the world.
The far-left Jacobin, which also considers the events of 2014 to be a coup, offered a much more measured description. Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic wrote that NED is “an instrument for overtly carrying out the kinds of influence operations the CIA used to carry out covertly.” This analysis is much more accurate, to be sure.
Nevertheless, sources like these seem to search far and wide to find a smoking gun, but the best they can come up with is “influence.” This does not bode well for any theory about a coup.
It is undeniable that Western influencers are at work in Ukraine, and that presence has only increased following Putin’s invasion. But influence is not the same as force, and coups imply force.
The impact of this influence was also tepid at best. In fact, the litmus test for whether this was even a coup at all is simple: was the coup successful?
THE FAILED “COUP”
The last piece to consider is whether a puppet—a critical part of any coup—replaced Yanukovych. Once again, the truth is predictably anti-climactic.
After Yanukovych fled the country in February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to officially impeach and remove him as president. Taking his place as acting president was the uncontroversial Oleksandr Turchynov. He had assumed the role of acting prime minister back in 2010 when Yulia Tymoshenko lost her re-election and a vote of no confidence removed her administration.
This is important. Ukrainian voters did not choose her in the May 2014 election either. She failed to anticipate the public’s complete lack of trust in her following allegations of corruption. She lost in a landslide—54.7% to 12.81%. The point here is not why she lost but that she lost—and lost badly. If the coup masters wanted a puppet, why wouldn’t they pick her?
She lost to another oligarch, Viktor Poroshenko, despite the fact that she was already a proven asset for the West. In 2008, she signed a joint statement with then-president Viktor Yushenko to seek membership in NATO. She also attended the Bucharest summit months later to lobby for it, but Germany objected. Germany has become increasingly dependent on Russian energy—and Putin was in attendance at this summit.
That is why, immediately following her release from prison in 2014, she quickly courted Germany—picking the ball up right where she left it. Her allegiance to NATO was no secret, yet she lost anyway. She failed to capitalize on her political martyrdom because Ukrainians no longer trusted her.
Instead, the voters chose Poroshenko, who was also a founding member of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. The West liked him, but mostly because of his various anti-Russian policies.
However, when the Ukrainian authorities later investigated Poroshenko for corruption, they revealed that he and his associates had ties to the Kremlin. One of these associates, Viktor Medvedchuk, negotiated energy deals with Russia and its proxies on behalf of Poroshenko. In particular, the Kyiv Independent reported:
‘Tapes released by the Bihus.info investigative journalism project in June revealed new information on relations between Poroshenko and Medvedchuk.
Specifically, Medvedchuk has allegedly discussed introducing an intermediary company, believed to be controlled by Poroshenko, into Ukrainian power supplies to the Russian-annexed Crimea. Medvedchuk has also allegedly delayed a prisoner of war exchange with Russia and its proxies in order to help Poroshenko stage a publicity stunt with a Ukrainian prisoner, Bihus.info reported.
Moreover, Medvedchuk held negotiations on natural gas supplies with Russia on Poroshenko’s behalf, according to the tapes.”
In case you’re not making the connection here, Medvedchuk also has a teenage daughter who just so happens to be Putin’s goddaughter. If Poroshenko is indeed a puppet of the West, it would seem strange to pick someone with friends like that.
Despite all of this, Ukrainians elected the Western-aligned Poroshenko in a landslide victory—the emphasis is on “elected.”
International observers declared this election as fair. Specifically, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe concluded that the election:
“…was characterized by high voter turnout and the clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms in the vast majority of the country. This was despite the hostile security environment in two eastern regions and the increasing attempts to derail the process by armed groups in these parts of the country.”
In other words, the election was about as fair as it could have been, considering part of the country was simultaneously fighting off occupiers.
Western media fondly remembered Poroshenko’s presidency because he modernized the country and made it easier to do business with. He also brought the country closer to NATO, despite his ties to the Kremlin. It’s not hard to see why.
Putin’s illegal annexation of Crimea was a brazen mafia-like covert operation that nobody saw coming. It has done more to convince the Ukranians to ally with the West than anything that happened before it. It is simply absurd to think that Poroshenko was a Western-backed puppet because any other president would need to respond to a constituency that begged for Western protection as the Ukrainians did.
Poroshenko eventually lost his re-election bid because many Ukrainians saw him as an oligarch who failed to bring any corrupt officials to justice. Poroshenko lost to a comedian and political newcomer, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Zelensky did not initiate the push to join NATO, however. By the time Zelensky was elected, the pursuit of NATO membership was already official Ukrainian policy. Interestingly, Zelenzky ruffled feathers by appearing to seek a reversal of this policy by dismissing well-known reformers in the Ukrainian government. He was looked down on by his peers until Russia’s invasion and his bucking of Western ambitions turned into outright begging.
SO, BASICALLY…
Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Of course, many aspects of the Ukrainian conflict involve a level of complexity that remains to be explored, and I’ve only scratched the surface. Still, the basic explanation here is pretty clear.
Yanukovych betrayed the people of Ukraine. He reversed course on the EU deal, capitulated to Russia for very little in return, and brutalized his own people. Parliament unanimously removed him. Finally, a subsequent democratic election, which international observers found to be fair, provided Ukraine with a new leader. That’s it.
Any argument that focuses on Western influences and leaves out these basic facts is misrepresenting the entire course of events. It amounts to a cluster of lies by omitting most of the background.
At the same time conspiracy theorists are doing this, they continue to downplay Putin’s increasing crimes. Putin criminalized war criticism, for example, and forces the grieving families of Russian soldiers to have funerals in secret for fear that the true cost of Putin’s war becomes known.
Conspiracy theorists expect us to ignore Putin’s crimes and, instead, focus on the freedom-seeking Ukrainian citizens that started an underground video network with seed money from Western influencers. Talk about punching down.
It’s simple. Ukraine is a country that is mired in corruption, and its people are tired of being played. They now largely feel like Russia is the bad actor, and that’s because it is.
If you take nothing away from this, let it be this: The 2014 coup theory is insulting.
There is a reason that the Maidan protests are referred to by Ukrainians as the “Revolution of Dignity”. Calling the events of 2014 a “coup” robs the people of Ukraine of their agency. It says that they are too stupid to know what’s best for them.
Don’t do that. Be pragmatic and look at the big picture. Realize that most of what you have heard or read about this conspiracy theory originated from the very lips of Putin himself.
-
Libertarians May Lose Ballot Access In Colorado
Last year, the most competitive high-profile race in Colorado was the race in Colorado’s newest eighth district. The district was carved up in such a way that nobody really knew which way it would swing. In the aftermath, Libertarian candidate Dan Ward ended up covering the spread in the race because it was so close. Needless to say, the Republican that lost is pissed and Libertarians may lose ballot access as a result.
Barbara Kirkmeyer has recently presented a bill that would eliminate every minor party’s ability to nominate candidates as a path to the ballot. It totally guts the caucus system. If it passes, LPCO will effectively become one of the worst ballot access states overnight. The worst part of all is that the LP helped create this moment with its adversarial strategy and terrible messaging.
There is a right way to run a race in which Libertarians stand accused of spoiling. Last year, the most high-profile race in the Libertarian Party was the Senate race in Georgia. Its contrast with the adversarial strategy favored by LP National is quite stark. Chase Oliver made such a splash, he was covered in Rolling Stone, The Guardian, and of course The New York Times. This was also following a campaign where he appeared countless times in local and national media.
Chase probably received more press than most other Libertarians running that year combined—and it was nearly all good press. Next to that race, the most notorious candidate was easily Dan Ward. In both cases, they turned the spoiler narrative on its head. Spoiling the race was never presented as the end in and of itself. It was merely the inevitable result of an establishment ignoring voters completely.
None of this is shocking and certainly isn’t new. So why are Republicans in Colorado finally lashing out this time?
The new LP leadership is not pragmatic in anything that it does, and it has done everything possible to agitate and anger rather than inspire and welcome. If you’re wondering why Libertarians may lose ballot access, this is why.
The new LP leadership is hostile to the principles of diplomacy and consensus-building, and is unwelcoming to peacemakers. It is also very tone-deaf and out of touch. Voters do not want what they are selling, and that is in the data from the last election. All of this plays into why the situation is what it is.
It’s not to say the new LPCO leadership is entirely to blame. Libertarians may lose ballot access if Colorado Republicans no longer see Libertarians as allies but as threats. This is what’s fairly new, though. They have often worked together on things over the years, in fact.
The Center-Right Coalition, The Center for Self Governance, the now-former Principles of Liberty, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Leadership Program of the Rockies, and even the Independence Institute (where LPCO holds its board meetings) are all fairly decent organizations and thinktanks that count both Libertarians and Republicans among its members and/or students. There are very few similar organizations on the left in Colorado, by comparison.
Republicans have not been competitive in Colorado in decades, though Lord knows they’ve tried. Trump’s camp was so bad at reading the rules in 2016 that Ted Cruz swept the state. That hasn’t stopped them from making life miserable for Colorado Republicans, though. They are a hot mess and as bitterly divided as the GOP is nationally. That should be all to say about it.
Except, there is that Senate race.
The Republican Senate candidate, Joe O’Dea, very publicly denounced Donald Trump, and it almost certainly cost him the election. That is not the strange thing, though. What’s really wierd is what the Libertarian candidate was saying during the campaign.
Brian Peotter, the Libertarian candidate, was very conspicuous in his desire to spoil the race—for the Republican, specifically. He was a pro-MAGA election denier, along with his wife who ran for state Senate as a Republican. He bragged about wanting to spoil the race for O’Dea at every chance he got, saying he wanted to “make points of going on and being a spoiler.” The problem is, it didn’t go over very well anywhere.
In his interview with conservative Denver talk show local, Leland Conway, he was scolded for making his campaign “destructive” by basing it off of the GOP candidate. Conway said he should be running a pro-Liberty campaign to grow the party instead. He also said it’s a little weird for a Libertartian to make abortion the number one issue. This message was so bizarre that hosts of a sister progam on the same network lambasted this strategy pretty harshly. They said it was “disgusting,” “shallow,” and that “if Bennet wins, they should invite this guy to the victory party.” Despite this horrible look, the LPCO rewarded him with a seat on its board of directors.
This is a top-down strategy in the Libertarian Party, by the way, and no one should be surprised. LNC Chair Angela McArdle responded to questions in an interview with Rising last year about spoiling elections for Republicans specifically. The Libertarian Senate candidate in Arizona had just dropped out and endorsed Trump-favorite Blake Masters (who lost, by the way). She defended it, but everybody’s jaw dropped at what she said about the Georgia race:
“From what I understand the Georgia GOP is not liberty minded, they are much more milquetoast neo-con in their government style, so I support our candidates who are running there.”
This statement is truly incredible. The statement implies that they would not support Libertarians unless they were running against specific Republicans in certain races. It means the entire strategy of the Libertarian Party is no longer about Libertarianism at all, it is about shaking up the GOP and making it more MAGA-friendly. It is no longer the party of principle.
The irony here is that a little bit of pragmatism would bring principle back to the LP. Rather than play politics the way the major parties do, Libertarians could stand true to their principles and work with others. This is not a crazy idea, because it is exactly how we got ballot access in Colorado in the first place.
More than two decades ago, Libertarians went to the chambers of Congress and made friends. They were on the floor, working the room, until enough Republicans and Democrats saw that it was in their best interest to be inclusive. They crafted a bill that gave minor parties access to most of the same rights to the ballot that the major parties enjoy. Ballot access is so easy for Libertarians in Colorado that they have always been suspicious of sore loser Republicans.
It is also possible to have grace and principles when spoiling a race for one of your opponents. That is what Libertarian candidate Dan Ward did when he spoiled the highly competitive CD8 race in Colorado last year. The Republicans and Democrats ignored him, but so did present leadership in the Libertarian Party. He really was the rebel with principles, running a rogue campaign in every sense of the word.
His success drew the attention of countless media outlets that elevated his message over and over and over again. Most of that media attention focused on his unifying message. It might explain the positive portrait of him done by Kyle Clark—someone that is by no means a friend to Libertarians. Dan called out his own party’s often bigoted and confusing messaging. Libertarians in Colorado got some of the best press ever as a result.
Most people want a principled candidate that isn’t going to lie to them. They don’t like being used or played, and they have no respect for campaigns that are based on contrarianism. This new brand of party politicking in the LP generated good press for every Libertarian candidate that rejected it openly.
There is nothing wrong with a Libertarian relishing the spoiling of a race after the fact—especially if the other candidate deserved to lose. Even so, there is a way to do this tactfully and spun in a positive light.
The public should understand that it is nobody’s fault but the candidate himself if he loses, and that he is not entitled to anyone’s vote. Spoiling a high-profile race is a great opportunity to educate voters about alternative voting methods, and to illustrate the flaws in the two-party system. It can be hopeful and inspiring and spun into a totally positive experience.
Picking fights and making enemies, on the other hand, is not how you win people over.
If the present Minority Whip in Colorado has had enough of the LP, the blame rests with those in LPCO leadership that do not understand politics. This is why Libertarians may lose ballot access. This one power-hungry and vengeful Republican will certainly not be the last. The LP is presently promoting a strategy of exclusion, and they brag about it. No one should expect them to be the voice of inclusion on literally anything.
The only hope left for Libertarians in Colorado is that the Democrats continue believing—incorrectly—that Libertarians only spoil for the Republicans. The day will come, though, when the Democrats will have to realize that third party coalitions hurt them, too.
When that day comes, I hope that the LP is not the bumbling, incoherent, creepy, xenophobic, mean-spirited and uncomfortably shrieking sideshow it presently is.
The Senate referred the bill to the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. It has a hearing at the Old Supreme Court on Thursday at 1:30. If you want to testify remotely, in-person, or in writing, click here. Libertarians need your support!
-
The New House Rules Won’t Make Congress Better
The House of Representatives passed a new rules package last week and it contains plenty of goodies that Libertarians will certainly celebrate. The new House rules contain many positive changes, but good deeds done for the wrong reasons will end badly for everyone involved. Because politics.
There are rules designed to reduce spending, cut funding to specific government programs, allow for more deliberation on bills before they are voted on, ending omnibus bills, and allowing committees to bring bills to the floor directly. These are the sort of things that Justin Amash advocated for the entire time, by the way. In fact, his presence during last weeks kerfufle on the House floor did not occur without a sense of irony.
The GOP was probably happy with most of it. On the other hand, the small contingent of MAGA-loving malcontents managed to negotiate strange things from a flailing new speaker that had no choice but to cave to their childish demands. The biggest problem is that some of these rules do not seem designed to level the playing field for every voting member of Congress at all. They just replace old machinations with new ones.
The rules create committees that were clearly started with some kind of personal agenda in mind. For one thing, they mean to create a Select Subcommittee on Weaponizition of the Federal Government. In a different context, the name alone is both sobering and refreshing to Libertarians. In the context of this new batch of misinformation-consuming Trump worshipers, however, it is purely political theater.
To be honest, if this were the type of effort that might lead to such historical landmarks as, say, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (or even the Civil Rights Act), then this should be music to our ears. We all know that this will go nowhere, though. It is doomed just like their attempt to relitigate the entire pandemic with the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. It is doomed like their attempt to reignite a trade war with China with the Select Subcommittee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. Who are they kidding?
All of these committees are pointless. They will likely serve as ground zero for witch hunts and propaganda wars. They will accomplish nothing other than undermining whatever good will might have been achieved with the other new rules.
Every two years, the public gets a chance to send a new batch of people to represent them. They hope that—this time—things will be better. If only enough of those little dots up on the screen are red or blue, then things will be better. In reality, it just rearanges the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
The House usually passes rules as a formality, but along party lines. The game continues. What makes the new rules package concerning for Libertarians is the intent. They say they want what we want, but they don’t.
The GOP has always been one side of the same corrupt coin. The fact that they have a rebel faction of misfits is beside the point. When the Democrats were faced with their own rebel faction cultivated by Bernie-style progressives, they shut it down with ruthless efficiency. The only difference between them at the moment is that the Democrats are just better at all of this shadiness.
Their mistreatment of the progressive wing will eventually catch up to them. For the time being, though, they will ride this wave of anti-MAGA sentiment and hope nobody notices how bad they still are.
The GOP shot itself in the foot because it allowed this sideshow to continue. It rejects the center at its own peril.
Recent Posts
- The LNC’s Complete Weaponizing Of The State Against Libertarians (Part 4 of 4)
- Libertarian Party Of Michigan Members Reject The Coup (Part 3 of 4)
- The Corrupting Of LPMI’s Judicial Process (Part 2 of 4)
- Why The Hell Is The Libertarian Party Suing Members In Michigan? (Part 1 of 4)
- What Koppelman Gets Right About Libertarianism: “Burning Down The House” Review