Libertarian Party member and activist – not to mention former Libertarian Vice-President candidate and Muslims for Liberty founder and current M4L National Director Will Coley has called out former Libertarian National Committee Chair candidate Charles Peralo for being a Republican, not a Libertarian, because he has pledged his “vote for 80% of Republican elections.” Coley has been a thorn on Peralo’s side ever since Peralo publicly accused him of allegedly encouraging a Libertarian activist named Mark Matthew Herd to instigate a temper tantrum because he was highly inebriated in the hallway of the Rosen Centre in Orlando, Florida on May 28 that weekend.
Here are the Facebook posts chronicling what took place on May 29, 2016:
Here are Coley’s posts which came out the night before:
This is Scheurer’s post zoomed in from Facebook as a photo:
The truth is this: I was a part of the problem at that time. I took sides with Being Libertarian‘s Head of Media Relations staffer Mike Mazzarone (Twitter username @MJMazzarone) and Peralo against Will on the grounds that I, along with nearly everyone else, believed them. It wasn’t until Tim Yow Jr., a Michigan Libertarian and a good friend of mine, told me (as he stated in the two-above screenshots) that Peralo lied to him. He didn’t know Mazzarone, but I was wrong to accept Mazzarone’s word as I should have looked into it more before I rendered my judgment in favor of anyone or anything. I dropped the ball on that, and I was wrong.
This is what I posted on May 29 on my timeline, and I now regret having done it since:
On that same day, I shared my post on the John McAfee / Judd Weiss Libertarian Party Presidential Campaign 2016 Facebook group (which is a closed discussion group anyway). There I posted the following:
Just so everyone can see, I updated that post with a 10-21-2016 statement in which I had just renounced my statement that I sent out on May 29 because of the error of my thinking and my ways.
The day I sent this post to the McAfee group, members poured in with their comments, and they are the following:
To take my apology further, I was wrong to crucify Will for what happened. I should have listened to him and not to Mazzarone and Peralo. I wish Stapleton had clarified it, but he dropped the ball on that one.
I already apologized to Will tonight, and it went like this:
And that’s the truth.
(And, oh yes, I’m running for Michigan State Representative, District 32, in 2018. Be on the lookout next year and the year after that.)
I’m glad Will has come out with this revelation. Why? Let me explain.
This is the same Peralo who opposes the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), considering the NAP should not be an absolute principle that spans in and out of politics and even within and outside of the State. If he had his druthers, he would repeal the LP’s pledge that a new Party member must sign when he or she joins the Party and a renewing member must reinforce when he or she renews her dues.
The Pledge exists for a reason, Peralo. It exists because you don’t employ force or fraud against anyone who *IS NOT* violent towards you or *DOES NOT* employ violence against you whatsoever. The only defensive aggression – or force if you wish to call it – is when someone tries to be violent towards you (i.e. taking your property, brandishes a firearm and raises it to your head and pulls the trigger (thus murdering you in cold blood), engages in rape, molestation,, , and you have a natural right to defend your person.
The goal of taxation is to repeal it, because taxation *IS* theft. But, while that is true and that is the goal to end taxation across the board, cuts in taxes to the point where it can be easily repealed can be justly, morally, legally, and swiftly taken. Anyone with a pulse worth his or her salt can neither speak out against it nor see it not coming to pass.
L. Neil Smith, a libertarian who is a former Libertarian, describes the Non-Aggression Principle (which is also called the Zero Aggression Principle like this:
That’s why Charles Peralo isn’t a libertarian. He is a capital (L) Libertarian, but ideologically speaking, he’s a “Libertarian-In-Name-Only” Libertarian. That alone does *NOT* say much about him being a s0-called libertarian, but it certainly speaks volumes about his character.
As Coley succinctly put it:
[Y]our self professed new libertarian party leaders folks[.]
It’s time for the Libertarian Party to return to its principles and to preserve, protect, restore, and carry out the Non-Aggression Principle while running candidates to win. It’s time that we are *NOT* like the Democrats and Republicans. It’s time that we are a far cry from them.
That’s what we should be and what we ought to strive for, not to be a carbon copy of either the Democrats or the Republicans. What will it take for the immensely milquetoast LINOs in my Party to fathom that? Seriously!