LNC Motion to Censure LP New Hampshire [Now with New Vote]

Last updated on September 15, 2025

Voting is under way. As of this writing, votes included

Yes -Thompson, Nanna, McMahon, Bohler, Knebel, Redpath, Darr, Nekhaila
No – Watkins, Bost

Sam Bohler wrote:
Colleagues,

It pains me having to write this out. I opposed motions to censure recently, and although I thought they might have had some merit, they were rapacious and contained everything but the kitchen sink. It made it impossible to take seriously for purposes of accountability, therefore I aim to make this motion concise so as to not suffer the same fate.

I have always wanted to visit New Hampshire. It seems like such a beautiful place with wonderful people, which makes the ugly rhetoric coming out of our affiliate there that much more jarring and unbelievable. I support the Free State Project that has made great strides in NH. I hear that often libertarians are running as Democrats or Republicans as to not be plagued by the broken ballot access and voting methods that styme the Libertarian Party’s ability to compete with them fairly nationwide. This dynamic makes me understand why our affiliate might feel the need to adopt even more extreme positions to differentiate itself.

That understanding does not extend to the horrible posts coming out of its social media. I’ll be the first to admit that the state I chair, Alabama, also has a social media problem: being next to non-existent. It is something we are working to fix, but I will not allow that shortcoming to prevent me from commenting on these posts that seem hell-bent at augering this party into the ground. LPNH’s posts have devolved into low effort rage bait posts, that appear to aim at increasing engagement, and I’m sure they have been very successful at that. But I would take heed of the saying “Nothing worth having comes easy.” The audience those posts attracts is toxic, and as some of them join the affiliate, it will only push it further into deplorable rhetoric.

Yesterday’s 9/11 post depicting a Hasidic jew piloting a plane heading towards the twin towers stating “We did it,” along with the use of homophobic slurs with wreckless abandon is beyond the pale. These posts, this rhetoric, is antithetical to our party’s respect of individual dignity.

We cannot allow one affiliate to drag the Libertarian Party’s name through the mud without the entire Party suffering. Other affiliates have already been burdened with the consequences of these posts during the election cycles of the past few years. We must act now and protect our reputation, otherwise there won’t be much left.

Ergo, I am moving the following and seeking cosponsors:

Whereas, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire has published posts on social media depicting a Jewish person piloting a plane in connection to the September 11 attacks, and the use of homophobic slurs, which reasonable people would consider antisemitic and bigoted;

Whereas, this behavior diminishes the Libertarian Party’s image on the national stage, damaging not only our reputation but also our ability to grow;

Whereas, a previous attempt to censure was dismissed, yet the pattern of behavior has only escalated;

Be it therefore resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee censures the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire for its despicable conduct, and invites them to disaffiliate and cease its use of the Libertarian Party name so as to allow another group more in line with the values of this Party to petition for affiliation.

In Liberty,

photo

Samuel Bohler

—————-

There was debate.

Travis Bost wrote:

I am only inclined to consider a censure or other motion regarding LPNH limited to their endorsement of Donald Trump, which is a clear violation of our bylaws & affiliate requirements (if this isn’t the case I welcome correction).

You are correct that prior proposals have been overly broad (for example Mr. Redpath’s motion combined two different affiliates; I would have moved to divide had their been appetite to consider)

——————-

Ben Weir wrote:
Everyone here needs to realize that this knee-jerk motion is reckless and counterproductive.

All this outrage posturing does nothing but feed drama and weaken the Party. Especially when we have a Treasurer who needs to be replaced.

This kind of punitive stunt is a waste of time and credibility.

My position is that you should stop trying to score points by destroying our own.

You are not protecting the Party… you’re embarrassing it.

Actions like this only alienate allies and energize opponents.

Seriously, stop pushing this nonsense before you make things even worse.

Sincerely,
Ben Weir
Region 6 Alt

——————-

Watkins wrote:
This, I’m sure, will raise revenue.

——————-

Thompson wrote:
Good morning,
While my preference is to include more, such as:

The LPNH’s outright endorsement of President Trump.
Repeatedly off-platform messaging.
A long-documented history of racism and bigotry.
Repeated attacks on Libertarian candidates.

Certainly, much more could be added regarding the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire’s repeatedly damaging and anti-libertarian actions.
However, as a motion has been submitted, I will gladly co-sponsor.

————————

Ben Weir wrote:
Anyone who votes in favor of this or co-sponsors it is either a COINTELPRO operative or a woke communist infiltrator that needs to leave the Party.

Imagine caring more about this than having a competent Treasurer.

It’s like y’all are intentionally trying to tank the Party.

-Ben

———————

Thompson replied
Anyone who thinks Mr. Redpath has caused harm to the party is in error.
Anyone who thinks Mr. Redpath has caused more harm to the Party than the LPNH is intentionally wrong.

———————

Bohler wrote (and note the acrostic):
Such conduct is unbecoming of a state chair and his affiliate.

How you treat others reflects upon who you are as a person.

Our Party deserves better leaders who take their positions seriously.

When you respond in uncouth acrostics, you disrespect yourself and this party.

Social media posts from your affiliate are dragging this party down.

Our affiliates should hold themselves to the highest standards.

Maturity is a necessary quality of a leader.

Everyone is watching you act like a child.

Crassness is not a quality of a good leader.

Liberty also means demanding the respect of others’ dignity.

Acting petty only undermines your own defense.

Sorry our membership couldn’t have better representation.

---

Weit wrote:

Censure me too then. IDGAF.

When I asked several of you to help me do something productive and positive for the Party by bringing back regional trainings and doing some fundraising, you were unresponsive and couldn’t answer calls.

You care more about virtue signaling then actually doing something positive to bring people together. So tired of y’alls cherade.

Everyone can see right through it. Be genuine or be nothing.

-Ben

———————————-

Bost wrote:

If I may steel man the opposition to this motion without all the colorful distractions :

It has long been the position of this committee that rather than distancing ourselves from the affiliate, a censure will only embolden them while drawing more attention to their actions. The other avenue available to us we could not afford then, and certainly cannot afford now.

I maintain (as mentioned earlier) that a narrowly focused and concrete motion might be of some benefit, but such a motion has yet to be moved.

—————–

Bost also wrote:

Mr. Weir has been one of the most reasonable and levelheaded members of this committee throughout our many factional disagreements and power struggles, let’s chill please.
————————-

Thompson responded

I do not expect the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire to see this condemnation and think “Well golly, maybe we were wrong.”

Many attempts have been made to change their behavior, and those attempts have obviously been rejected.

What I hope to gain from this is some distance from overtly bad messaging, such as their endorsement of President Trump. It will at least provide something to point to when members say we condone such behavior.

That doesn’t resolve the matter, but it at least makes it clear we don’t condone it.

———————

Bost wrote:
I will welcome a censure, motion related to their endorsement of President Trump. Thank you, Keith.

Thompson responded to Travis Bost
Thank you, Travis.

While I think that would additionally be called for, I also think it’s important to distance ourselves from the messaging being addressed with this censure.

As you know, the matter was brought up to the board by a member, and Mr. Weir’s response included “Oh well. Lmao.”

———————

Bohler wrote
Getting back to the debate of the motion:

Mr. Bost,

I agree that LPNH’s endorsement of Donald Trump is certainly a worthy addition, and a clear bylaws violation. Although I was using Mr. Redpath’s original censure motion as reference, which included it, I forgot to add that clause as an oversight.

Although I agree that is the strongest argument in favor of the censure, I do not believe we can turn a blind eye to the repugnant statements coming out of their affiliate and damaging the Party’s image. Fear of escalation from their side, when they have been escalating on their own, is a detrimental appeasement strategy. It has to be addressed, but I appreciate your willingness to consider a motion to censure at all, and respect your hesitance.

———————

Bohler also wrote

Mr. Bost,
As a compromise, maybe we can take inspiration from your desire to divide the prior censure of two affiliates into one per affiliate, and have two motions to censure for LPNH:
1. The endorsement of Trump
2. The motion that started this thread in regards to their conduct on social media

I understand there would be greater support for the first one, and if you oppose the rationale of the second, it still helps us try and hold the affiliate accountable for their actions.

Bost agreed that this might be a better arrangement.

————————–

Thompson said
I think it’s better to leave them as two distinct issues – as that’s what they are.

I believe this one can well stand on its own, and additionally we should condemn their outright endorsement of President Trump.

An additional motion for the LNC read

The other hurdle to cross with the former is whether such a motion related to the 2024 election is still timely.

Thompson writing in support of the general direction.

—————-

Bost and Hays urged workshopping the Trump motion offline.

—————-

Austin Martin wrote:
Aloha!

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

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

Shame on all of you.

I will explain:

This is the absolute worst way that we can honor Mr. Charlie Kirk, who stood for open dialogue and openly debated with leftists, whose views he (justifiably) found abhorrent, offensive, violent, racist, authoritarian, and repugnant. The blood-thirsty leftist establishment does, in fact, want to murder their political opposition. In the days after his assassination, I refuse to be involved in a censure motion against speech. It is a moral shame on each of us that this motion is occurring now — in the hours after a man like Charlie Kirk was brutally assassinated in front of his watching young family.

I personally hate the unsupported theory that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks — it lacks evidence and incurs the worst forms of group blame. I despise it. However, even though I believe this view is gravely mistaken, (perhaps prejudiced), I recognize that many arrive at this conclusion not by hate, but by over-valuing the “qui-bono” and circumstantial questions above other evidence. We can’t just act like it’s “antisemitism”; that will actually make the questionable post even more popular, regardless of merits. We in the LP should know that the answer to speech we don’t like isn’t censorship, but more speech.

There’s a relevant episode of South Park, where the difference between the meaning of the words “homosexuals / gays” was made explicitly clear and distinct from the word “faggot”. The episode explored how the meaning of the word “faggot” has changed over time to be used to describe various types of people as burdens or disrespectful jerks, (I.e.: like annoying Harley riders). It also made mockery of leftist pearl-clutchers who freak out at words. “Faggot” is rarely used solely as an attack against a person’s sexual identity and more toward their tendency to be an obnoxious jerk. It would be a tactical mistake of the highest magnitude to censure LPNH for making a direct reference to this socially & culturally relevant political humor. It’s like shooting one’s self in the foot.

The Chase campaign was offensive and un-inclusive toward a large portion of the libertarian party, which resulted in some of the worst performance in LP presidential candidate history. Rather than the campaign accepting and learning from their mistakes, they are blaming their critics for their own failure to unite the LP base. This motion seems to be in that same spirit.

Finally, I had a censure swiftly brought against me over 5 words criticizing an obviously fraudulent document, and my criticisms have proven 100% valid — perhaps even understated. Mr. Redpath’s naked hypocrisy and alleged dereliction of duties is a far more urgent conduct issue than distasteful political remarks from an edgy affiliate. It is not lost on me that the timing to censure Mr. Weir’s affiliate comes right after he levels serious professional criticisms at Redpath — again exposing potentially serious misconduct on this board. This response offers an appearance of selective enforcement and retaliation, even if that wasn’t the intent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mahalo!
Austin Martin

————————

Thompson noted : The benefit of such a censure is that it distances the Party from repeated damaging messaging.  It is not aimed at infighting, removing members, or distracting from other issues. It’s us, as the Libertarian National Committee, saying “this does not represent us.”

————————-

Martin responded to Bohler:
Mr. Thompson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You all have lost the plot.

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

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

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

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

He’s right.

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

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

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

Mahalo!
Austin Martin
———————

Thompson reported that the LPNH Committee had circulated the text of the motion so the motion was reposted to LNC Public. He added
Good day, again.

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

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

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

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

Attacks on Trans people are an attack on Liberty

————-

Martin countered:

Mr. Thompson,

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

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

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

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

Austin Martin

—————-

Ben Weir wrote:
You’re a bunch of mentally ill cowards and frauds. This is ridiculous.
Go back to your authoritarian leftist roots in the Democratic Party. The Libertarian Party cannot bow down or shake hands with you communists. None of you should have ever been welcomed here.

———————-

Keith Thompson Responded:
It’s not “leftist” to disassociate from bigotry.
It’s not “communist” to take issue with antisemitism, especially when it’s been repeatedly done for years with no remorse.

The Libertarian Party supports individual liberty, not collectivist hate.

We should welcome members of the Jewish community who share our values, not turn them away with repeated messages of antisemitism.

In liberty,

Keith Thompson