In presidential election years, the Libertarian Party holds its national convention over Memorial Day Weekend. I returned home from my ninth such convention yesterday.

Donald Trump and RFK Jr. spoke at our convention. You’ve probably heard about that.

We chose a presidential ticket: Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat. You may have heard about that as well.

Unless you were actually there, or watched and paid very close attention on C-SPAN, though, you probably didn’t notice some of the ways in which a Libertarian National Convention differs from the way the “Big Two” parties do business.

The “Big Two” conventions aren’t really conventions. They’re campaign commercials.

Democratic and Republican delegates know who their presidential candidate is long before they arrive, because they are (for the most part) “bound” delegates. They’re required to vote for the candidate who won their states’ primaries and caucuses.

Democratic and Republican delegates know who their vice-presidential candidate is because their presidential candidate tells them who he or she wants. They then cast a ceremonial vote to approve.

Democratic and Republican delegates generally ratify the platform and bylaws presented to them by insider-dominated party committees. They don’t HAVE to agree, but once again it’s pretty much just ritual.

Libertarian Party convention delegates — around a thousand of them, plus alternates — sit in a crowded room for several days actually making decisions. On Sunday, business commenced at 9am and wrapped up well after midnight.

Our delegates are “unbound” and free to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates we find most persuasive. Many of us arrive at the convention undecided and choose a candidate who’s actually talked not just TO us but WITH us. It often takes several rounds of balloting to choose. This year, we voted seven times, eliminating candidates with the fewest votes, before Chase Oliver received a majority vote for president. It took two ballots to choose Mike ter Maat for the veep slot.

We also choose our chair, other officers, and national committee at the convention. Those races are also often as hotly contested as the presidential race.

And we actually debate our platform and bylaws changes.

Our convention is fun, but it’s neither a campaign commercial nor a series of cocktail parties and bar crawls. It’s work. It’s HARD work. It’s IMPORTANT work. For some, it’s heart-breaking work, followed by a difficult process of trying to hug it out and move on.

Why bother? Because  every person in that room loves freedom, hates tyranny, and wants to offer Americans — including you — a chance to enthusiastically vote for what they love most, maybe for the first time, instead of reluctantly voting, yet again, against whomever they fear most.

That’s what we accomplished.

You’re welcome.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Ah, the merry month of May — and US Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito once again faces questions relating to his ethics.

Well, no, not really. What’s under question is his “impartiality.” That’s a different thing entirely … and not really a thing at all.

Fake news item number one: Alito sold his stock in Anheuser-Busch InBev last year, at the same time the company found itself boycotted by “conservative” randos who objected to the company sending a special can of beer to a social media influencer “conservative” randos don’t like.  There’s no question of insider trading or anything like that involved. Alito took a loss on his Anheuser-Busch InBev shares. Maybe he did it because he agreed with the “conservative” randos, or maybe he just needed some quick cash. To the best of my knowledge, there are no cases before the court relating to the conflict between Anheuser-Busch InBev and “conservative” randos.

Fake news item number two: In early 2021, someone (Alito says it was his wife, not him) flew an American flag upside down outside the Alitos’ home. That’s a traditional sign of emergency or distress, and coming around the time of the January 6 Capitol riot and the inauguration of a new president, it seems to convey political overtones. But there’s no law against Supreme Court justices (or their spouses) having, and expressing, political opinions.

These two fake news items are fake news neither because they’re necessarily untrue nor because they may not reveal political opinions the public might not like. They’re fake news items because they’re silly and trivial distractions from Alito’s REAL ethics problems and those of his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas.

As revealed by ProPublica last year, both Alito and Thomas accepted (and conveniently “forgot” to report) bribes … er, “gifts” … from wealthy friends with business before the court they sit on.

In Alito’s case, an expensive charter flight to Alaska and a $1,000+ per day stay at a luxury resort seemingly sufficed to buy his (non-decisive — he was one of a 7-1 majority) vote in a case worth $2.4 billion to bribe-payer … er, “gift-giver” … hedge fund manager Paul Singer.

Thomas likewise accepted unreported “gifts,” loans, and sweetheart property deals from the deep pockets of plutocrats with cases before the court. And he also got some fake news cover-up action focused on his wife’s associations with the Cult of Trump.

It doesn’t bother me if Samuel Alito takes a loss on stock because he doesn’t like a company’s politics, or if his wife flies a flag upside down over a supposed argument with a neighbor.  Nor do I think it’s reasonable to expect Alito or Thomas to control their spouses’ actions just because those actions are or might be “political.”

It does bother me that the over-the-top whining about such things obscures the real story: These two Supreme Court justices put their jurisprudence up for sale and got caught doing it. They should have been impeached and removed by now.

The bribes, and Congress yawning instead of acting, are the real scandals.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Last year, Texas governor Greg Abbott announced his plan to pardon a convicted, unrepentant murderer at the first opportunity. On May 16, Abbott fulfilled his threat, terminating Daniel Perry’s 25-year sentence and putting him back on the streets of The Lone Star State.

The occasion merits an Imminent Threat Alert concerning “imminent threats to safety or life” as codified in the US Emergency Alert System.

In 2020, Perry — after announcing his obsessive desire to murder protesters multiple times on social  media — ran a red light to put his car into the middle of a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters, then murdered libertarian activist Garrett Foster.

Perry later claimed that he acted in “self-defense,” even though he admitted in to police that Foster, who was carrying a rifle (as he was entitled by right to do), never pointed that rifle at him.

A jury didn’t buy the bogus self-defense claim, but Abbott saw an opportunity to “own the libs” by pleasing people who don’t like Black Lives Matter protesters. Hence the pardon.

So now Texans have a known and unrepentant murderer  loose among them, and those Texans have no reason whatsoever to believe that he won’t treat the pardon as license to murder again.

Fortunately, Texans also have a “stand your ground” law which, in theory at least, should protect them from Perry even more than it protected Perry (the assailant, not the victim, when he murdered Foster). It provides that “a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.”

If you happen to see Daniel Perry approaching you on the street, what could possibly be more reasonable than to believe that a man who has murdered before, then received a pat on the back and a get out of jail free card from the governor himself, is about to murder you too … and to react accordingly?

The world would likely be a safer place today if Garrett Foster had been able to get his rifle up in time to defend himself from Perry. Texas would certainly be a safer place today if a soft on (Republican-base-pleasing) crime governor hadn’t turned Perry loose.

Be safe out there, Texans. Avoid Perry if you can. Put him down like the rabid dog he is if you must.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY