Libertarian Party of Michigan District 8 Congressional District Representative (and Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate) Jeff Wood’s Reaction to Former LPM State Vice Chair Kim McCurry’s Anti-LP Piece

On October 19, 2017, after LPM member (and Abrogate Prohibition Michigan organizer) Dana Carver and I spoke with Michigan Libertarian Executive Committee‘s District 8 Congressional District Representative (and Libertarian gubernatorial candidate) Jeff Wood about former LPM State Vice Chair Kim McCurry‘s anti-LP piece in which she decided to leave the Libertarian Party, Wood posted his reaction over the entire matter on Facebook. Yup, he did, and he did it….just….like….that!

It didn’t surprise me that he would respond, but I think it did piss off a lot of people who weren’t expecting him to respond the way he did.

Here are all the screenshots of his thread on FB for your enjoyment.

Libertarians of Macomb County Membership Director Benjamin Joseph Dryke and LMC and LPM member Michael Worton have been firing off potshots at each other in this thread, and they’re not doing it all for naught. Check these out!

Let’s provide some clarity to Ben’s statement in which he said he defended Worton.

Now to continue with the screenshots:

Let’s bring some more clarity into Josh Barton’s response to Tyler Palmer, shall we?

Now back to the business at hand.

I tried to read Brandon Wellman‘s post and comments, but I got blocked on my regular political account. He even blocked it on my Todd A Barnett (Nightseeking Bear) account as well. (He may have deleted his comments from being shared, but I’ve already acquired them anyway.)

Here are the screenshots of the blocking of both accounts.

You get it now?

 

Here’s more clarity to the comments above.

The next screenshot gives you a teeny-weeny bit more clarification on the following comments.

Mark Sanborn had something to say about this.

Brandon Wellman

Now I don’t know why Wellman blocked my regular political account. I’ve never dealt with the man, never insulted, never acted or behaved in a condescending way to him, and never said a word to him.

Here are his nonsensical blog posts and comments about Kim’s decision to leave the Party.

First of all, let’s get something straight about Brandon Wellman. He was *NEVER* a true libertarian, let alone a Libertarian. He never amounted to anything more than being a donor to the Party, and that is it. That. Is. It! He was never a Party member. He never attended LEC and his county’s meetings. He was just a dye-in-the-wool hard-core conservative Republican pretending to be a Libertarian when he *NEVER* truly was. He was never a libertarian in the ideological sense. Again he was a conservative. Yes, that’s right! A conservative!!!

Second of all, the only reason he was in the Party was to convert and shift the balance of power from an ideologically-pure Libertarian one into a conservative GOP-lite one. He had nothing to give, and he also had nothing to lose either. He just didn’t give a billion shits about liberty and the entire libertarian movement that has been around decades before him.

Oh, and by the way, he can eat shit and die! His anti-Libertarian and anti-libertarian spewing can be thrown out the window. He’s equally a fuckhead as McCurry, and he doesn’t realize it. If he still doesn’t in the future, then he’s got more issues than Hustler Magazine.

Finally, he and all the “let’s-defend-Kim” idiots are doing exactly that because they love her. They like her. He’s got a massive hard-on for her. It’s true. He’s not doing out of principle and/or conviction. He’s doing it because he simply can, and that’s the god-awful not-fun-at-all part. Hell, if he could, he would sleep with McCurry behind her husband’s back, because why? Because. He. Simply. Can.

The drama in the LP and the LPM is simply entertaining. What’s more entertaining are the Wortons, the Wellmans, and the McCurrys of the world can’t handle the simple fact that we are truly libertarian (and Libertarian)…..and they’re not.

Not one iota. Not one bit.

 

Advertisements

Former Libertarian Party of Michigan Chair and Vice Chair Kim McCurry Leaves The LP for Good, Pathetically Outlining Her Reasons for Her Departure

Former Libertarian Party of Michigan Chair and Vice Chair Kim McCurry writes an open letter to all Libertarians in the Libertarian Party, the LPM, and the entire movement, publishes it on Liberty Chronicle, and posts it on her Facebook wall, announcing her decision to bolt from the Party…..for good**. Rumors had it for months that she was on her way out of the Party, but nothing was officially confirmed by her colleagues, her friends, her allies, and Hers Truly…..until now.

With all candor, it’s neither shocking nor surprising nor unexpected that she would make this move. However, that entirely said, I’m glad that she is leaving the Party. And good riddance too!

I will outline my reasons for making that statement, yet it’s time to take a good look at her article and her Facebook post and comments which also contain statements and opinions uttered by other Libertarian Party members as well as former members who, for all intents and purposes, despise and cannot stand the Party. That’s about the size of it.

First things first, let’s show the evidence of her open letter which she penned to all Party members who either liked her at all or disliked her all the way.

This is what she wrote, which she submitted to the Liberty Chronicle. The staff there was more than thrilled to publish her piece to their server so it can be perused on the World Wide Web.

That’s all that was put up on the Chronicle’s site.

Now let’s take a look at her Facebook post and the ensuing comments that followed in response.

Well, now that you’ve read both the Liberty Chronicle article and her Facebook post, her comments, and her fellow LP and LPM member comments, you’ve got to admit that her narcissistic, condescending, insulting, bitchy, backstabbing, backbiting, and high school drama-esque demeanor really show in her piece and post…..don’t they?

Here’s the ugly and real-world truth about McCurry. She has publicly gone forward with her hateful, vile, and spiteful comments about the Party and a number of people. Her libelous statements on people and her attacks toward me are reflective of her shady personality that she has kept well-hidden while playing the role of a nice Libertarian Party member and supporter in such a carefully-constructed manipulated way. She has deceived many in the Party circles by claiming to be a real Libertarian who has taken the non-aggression principle seriously and signed the Pledge which is the heart and soul of the NAP and pretending to agree with me on a number of issues. Now I’m thinking that perhaps she never has at all, and she has been lying to me and to so many in our trusted circles from the very start.

When I was recording the Libertarian Executive Committee (LEC) meeting with my iPhone at the party headquarters in Lansing on December 7th, 2016, former LPM Chair Bill Gelineau asked me to cease recording considering other members of the board discovered that I was recording via Facebook Live Video (considering I never ask for authorization). Immediately the board began to consider a resolution to oppose video streaming as well as video recording during its meetings because their claim was that sensitive discussions including treasurer reports would be made public on FB. LPM Treasurer Jason Brandenburg began the first step to authorize a resolution. However, Gelineau gave me the opportunity to speak in my defense. I basically told the board that not everyone in the Party can attend meetings, that the LEC is a political party and must be a transparent organization, and the membership has a right to know what’s transpiring during the sessions.

I made a compromise (against my better judgment) with the committee that I would not record during Brandenburg‘s treasurer reports (considering he was the Treasurer throughout the tenure of the previous LEC)…..and has since been re-elected to his party seat, making him an incumbent.

What also hasn’t been made public is that LEC At-Large Representative Jeff Wood (who is now Regional Representative District #8) came to my rescue by defending my First Amendment-protected rights. He told the board that I had done nothing wrong and that I was well within my rights to record the meetings because, as I stated before, it is about transparency on the board and in the Party. It is about holding and keeping our political party accountable for everything that it does – ideologically and financially and an establishment of a strong work ethic and relationship with its members. It’s about maintaining ethics and humility in the Party and restoring principles that the Party has been lacking for years.

When I made the compromise, Kim in her vice chair role looked at me while sitting at the board table with her laptop up and running said, “Thank you, Todd!” She said that because I ended up being used, manipulated, and treated like a doormat the entire time while I was there. She never at once defended my right to free speech within the Party and had no interest in doing so. She was nothing but currying favor with Gelineau just simply by kissing his political ass and ensuring conservativesque control of the Party.

This is the same Bill Gelineau who has gone public with his support for ObamaCare – a move that has metastasized to many circles among us. And yet he calls himself a libertarian, let alone a Libertarian.

Here’s another reason why it’s a good thing that she left the Party. She lied about LPM member Keith Butkovich when she accused him of stalking her more than a year ago. I spoke with Keith regarding this incident. I have no reason *NOT* to believe a word of what he’s said to me. He told me that when Kim pursued a stalking charge that she filed against him (even after she filed a restraining order against him*), the presiding magistrate found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution and conviction against him. Thus the case was ultimately tossed out of court. Keith won the trial because the judge ruled in his favor. Jeff Wood even confirmed this with me on this when we were talking on the phone Wednesday evening.

Therefore, Keith has every legal right, with the help of his attorney, to litigate against her for committing libel against him. And he is in the right to do exactly that.

This shows how deceitful and how much of a pathological liar she truly is. What an unfortunate truth that the members will be forced to contend with this undeniable fact.

After she blatantly attacked me in May of this year because I believe that many Libertarians left the Party because they didn’t like the comments made by LP National Chair Arvin Chair regarding the U.S. military, I called her while I was on the road driving to my wound care clinic one day. When we briefly talked about it, she said, “I was waiting for you to calm down.” That’s in reference to the both of us not talking for a few days after the online exchange. And yet I was not buying her bullshit. Keep in mind that this happened more than two months ago when we weren’t talking for a few weeks. I didn’t think that she was honest with me, but then you could never tell when she was dishonest completely.

How about the fact that, at the LEC meeting in June of 2016, she supported Brandenburg’s resolution (which was ultimately passed and went into effect) which called for the suspension of Libertarian Party member and Livingston candidate for sheriff James Weeks II …..all because he stripped at the Party’s national convention at the Rosen Centre in Orlando, Florida on May 30, 2016? I attended that meeting as a matter of fact, so I recorded it, despite the fact that Party member (and former LPM gubernatorial candidate) Mary Buzuma objected to it? (I suspect that her objection carried some weight with many of the LEC board members who would try to censor me with Bill Gelineau and Kim’s help because of my predilection for and a penchant of recording the board’s meetings at the December 7th meeting.)

I’m not sorry that she’s flown the Libertarian coop. Perhaps, by returning to the Republicans (where she was from originally), she will be of better use to them. Perhaps she will be an asset to the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Here’s the part that I find very troubling about her:

As a Libertarian, I resent her claim that people saw us as “Republicans who like to smoke weed.” That’s not what we’re about. That’s not what we have ever been about and will ever be about. Yes, there are many Libertarians – even some of us – who do enjoy and love smoking weed, but we’re more than that. We want freedom *NOT* only for ourselves but also for every single American and for all throughout the entire world. We want unrestricted liberty, not just *ONLY* to smoke cannabis. We want it now! We’ve already wanted it before Obama and even after him.

Yes, we don’t like taxes. Conservatives used to be against taxes at one time. That was decades ago obviously. Then they saw the writing on the wall and threw in the towel just to become statists. Today’s conservatives just want “tax reform” and “cutting taxes,” not repealing taxes like they used to many decades ago. They just want to replace ObamaCare and not replace it, even though they were calling for repeal and replacement and before that a repeal of the system briefly, not ending the government’s involvement in health care many decades ago. I could go down the list, but you get the point.

It’s both condescending and insulting that she conflates us classical liberals with progressive liberals in the Party. Progressives are Commie-lites. They want government involvement in the economy and high taxes as they love taxation, yet we classical liberals (or libertarians) want no taxes and want the State to cease to function. It’s that simple.

It makes her look bad when she says that she wants anarchists, anti-taxers, anti-government, anti-Drug War, and unregulated economy advocates pushed out of the Party. If you’re not Republican-lite for her, she wants you gone. There’s no question about it.

Goodbye, Kim. Sayonara. Adios! Don’t let the door hit you on the air now, you hear?

*Update 1: Kim actually filed a personal protection order, not a restraining order, against Keith Butkovich. This is a correction made via a request from him.

**Update 2: Some additional screenshots by Kim and her friends who blocked me on Facebook. I couldn’t get any of these via my current Facebook account because Kim has blocked me, but I used my alternative FB account to look at the posts in question.

Here they are.

That’s all I have on the screenshots.

I hope Kim got what she wanted overall. I believe she did.

Former Libertarian Party of Michigan Vice-Chair Kim McCurry’s Criticism of My Sincere Defense of Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra

Former Libertarian Party of Michigan Vice-Chair Kim McCurry (maiden name being Moore) recently criticized my post defending Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra. She took issue with the fact that I wrote a Facebook post on May 16 of this year, which was tied to her FB post which was about the following:

 

Bill Denton continues:

Of course, this next screenshot says it all about what McCurry and her allies have said months ago:

Notice Kim’s statement in which she comes off demanding to her readers and admits she’s a “conservative libertarian” who wants “social issues out of the LP”:

In the same week, I wrote my Facebook post in the following manner:

I ended up changing the first part of my post to assuage McCurry, but now I realize it was a waste of my time because she backstabbed me on there by having a discussion targetting me behind my back as well as every principled purist in the Libertarian Party.

I think you get the point anyway.

I also had a brief response to Kim as well. This is what the exchange on Facebook went:

It’s sad when you have the former state vice chair of a political party shit on you for the reasons outlined in the screenshots. But then that’s politics for you, especially Libertarian politics.

CONCLUSION

The painfully, ugly reality is this: Kim McCurry was doing her very best to minimize the attacks made against Arvin Vohra over his anti-military comments. She kept telling me that I was in the wrong, that Arvin’s comments had nothing to do with various members who were leaving the Libertarian Party when that was *TRULY* the case. She kept justifying their reasons for their departure by stating that my comments and Arvin’s statements had nothing to do with their leaving and that their decision to say “sayonara” to the Party was due to issues that allegedly had nothing to do with Arvin at all – an argument that I don’t buy and never have bought at all. Moreover, it’s an argument that I WILL NEVER BUY!!!

The problem is this: when you have conservatarians in the Party, they will water down its principles. When conservatarians try to inject social conservatism into the Party’s own political tent, they almost immediately turn the Party into a near carbon copy of their original political organization – in this case, the Republican Party.

Libertarians who want to win elections need to win them and preserve their principles – a lesson that even Ron Paul‘s very own Penny Langford Freedom told Adam Kokesh on his radio show Adam vs. the Man. Libertarian political campaigns are not, should not, and must never be organized and launched to educate the masses about liberty and its spectacular benefits. If people wanted to be educated about liberty and libertarianism, they would read a book on it or take courses in it at, say, the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Libertarian campaigns function for one purpose – and one purpose – only: to win and to enact policies from a strong Libertarian standpoint. They’re not set up to entertain the masses and tell people what the candidates and their supporters want to hear.

That doesn’t mean we reject the nonaggression principle. On the contrary, the NAP should be followed to the letter. To do that you can join the Libertarian and sign the pledge (which is the heart and soul of that principle) and pay your $25. That’s what it was designed for. But when it comes to winning elections you must tailor your message to placate the masses and, if you win and if elected, enact legislation and other policies that would bring about that Libertarian spirit.

That’s what Arvin had in mind. That’s what I had in mind. It’s too bad, however, that Kim McCurry and her legions of followers don’t have that in mind.

 

 

Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott Signs Bill Prohibiting Sanctuary Cities In His State

Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott has just signed a vigorously aggressive anti-sanctuary bill for Texas into law.

Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott has just signed a bill that outlaws sanctuary cities in his state.

Here’s an HD version of the video:

Here’s CNN’s sanctuary cities video which explains what these cities do and do not do.

Here’s the HD of that video:

If this doesn’t show you how racist Republicans are when it comes to independent migrants (as introduced by Sheldon Richman back in 2006), I don’t know what will.

 

Gay Cultural Libertarian and Trump Supporter Milo Yiannopoulos Finally Admits to The Nation That He Isn’t Really A Libertarian

milo-yiannopoulos-on-cnbc

Gay “cultural libertarian” and Donald Trump backer Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been a very controversial figure in many prominent leftist and limousine liberal circles as well as many Democratic-supporting groups that champion political correctness, gender feminism, and the lethal social justice warrior movement, has come out to The Nation‘s D.D. Guttanplan that he isn’t really a libertarian at all. Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and anarchists have suspected this all along, and for someone like Yiannopoulos to cop to this is surprising, because up until now he has finally confessed to something that has been an albatross around his neck.

Guttanplan showcases Yiannopoulos’ answer on Libertarians and my political movement and party’s ideology by stating questions to Yiannopoulos who in return replied to him in the following:

What about the Libertarians?

What about them?

Are they not an acceptable alternative?

No. They’re a joke.

Why?

Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole “everybody do what they want” is code for “leave me to do what I want.” It’s selfish and childish. It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That’s why they’re so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking.

I always thought those were the most attractive things about them.

Maybe so, but that’s why you can’t take them seriously. It’s all introspective and insular and selfish.

Here’s the entire Nation interview with Yiannopoulos:

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-1-clip-1-10-16-2016

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-2-clip-2-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-3-clip-3-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-4-clip-4-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-5-clip-5-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-6-clip-6-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-7-clip-7-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-8-clip-8-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-9-clip-9-10-16-2016

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-10-clip-10-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-11-clip-11-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-12-clip-12-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-13-clip-13-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-14-clip-14-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-15-clip-15-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-16-clip-16-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-17-clip-17-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-18-clip-18-10-16-2016

Let me address Yiannopoulos’s objectionable point he raised at one point during his interview, specifically the part where he claims Libertarians, and that would put me into the same column along with many of my fabulous and wonderful capital (L) Libertarians and lower-case (l) libertarians, that we are “a joke”:

Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole “everybody do what they want” is code for “leave me to do what I want.” It’s selfish and childish. It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That’s why they’re so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking.

Really, Yiannopoulos? So we’re “a joke” to you, all because we’re “selfish and childish,” right? We’re all just, according to your nihilistic and narcissistic British gay ass, “obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking”? Yes, we do want to legalize weed, and no, not all Libertarians and libertarians are into Bitcoin, although many of my ilk do like that digital currency.

Hacking? No, that’s wrong, because that would principally and cardinally be the equivalent of stealing someone’s set of keys and unlocking and going into that individual’s car and driving off into the sunset (a la stealing it) without telling the car owner what you plan to do with his or her property.

Another good analogy would be is this: that would be like taking that same set of keys and using one of the unused keys and unlocking and entering that individual’s home and stealing his or her TVs, his or her Blu-Ray players, and his or her kitchen plates. That would also include his or her Corona Light beer, most of his or her recent grocery store-bought limes, his or her clothes found in one of the bedroom closets, and his or her credit cards, checks, and cash. Then that thief would put ’em all in his or her car and driving off into the sunset after leaving the house unlocked and without bothering to tell the original owners that you were at their home.

No, we don’t hack into other people’s computers. That’s a violation of private property rights. The government’s property? That might be a different story, because the State can hack into our computers and record and listen to us all the time. But we don’t do that to people who are undeserving of that. We are better than that.

It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness.

No, it’s not “an admission” of anything. We “haven’t given up trying to work out what a good society would look like” because that’s tantamount to social engineering, and we are not trying to engineer – meaning mold or model society – into whatever we want it to be. We want to free individuals from the State, and live and let live. We want people to be free – free of tyranny, free of control, free of taxation, free of regulation, free of central planning, free of the State’s never-ending spending sprees, free of state-imposed debt and deficits, and free of Keynesian economics.

It is about returning to true autonomy of the individual, true free(d) markets,  true minimal government, repeal of state-imposed taxation and spending, true market regulations, true market mechanisms, and Austrian economics. It’s about allowing the individual to pursue his dreams and endeavors without the permission of the State and enabling entrepreneurs and free enterprises to flourish without their need to look over their own shoulders and see whether the guns of the State will thwart their very own-self interests. That’s what *REAL* individualism and liberty are all about, not the other way around.

In our world we don’t need order. The State leaving us alone to our own devices and allowing us to learn from our own failures and our mistakes are what make us all human in the end. It’s not our job to ensure “what a good society would look like.” Human beings are not cattle to be herded, not robots to be controlled with a remote control, and so on. We are not automatons. We are human beings with our own interests and desires to seek our own individual and own sovereign dreams, wishes, and desires.

So what if we are “selfish”? Yes, we are selfish. Human beings by their own nature are selfish organic entities. So what’s your point? You are selfish too, Milo, and you know it. You are selfish because, rather than carrying on with your life to further your own individual desires without the sheer brute power of force, you want to use coercion on other people to get and have your own way. That’s your brand of selfish. You are vain, narcissistic, and a nihilist, and that makes you more dangerous than political correctness and social justice warriors combined.

I oppose political correctness, and I despise social justice warriors. But I oppose and despise narcissistic, nihilistic, and vain people who love themselves so much that they must forcefully impose that need for adulation onto other people to get what they want. Libertarians like me are not interested in that, and we shouldn’t be interested at all. That’s not what attracts me to libertarianism.

What attracts me to that movement and to the Libertarian Party….is liberty.

T.J. Brown a.k.a. That Guy T of FEE furnishes his report on his friend Yiannopoulos with the following piece:

taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-1-clip-1-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-2-clip-2-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-3-clip-3-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-4-clip-4-10-20-2016Taleed is right, and Milo is wrong. We do “want to do what we want” because, as Taleed correctly notes, it’s “within the bounds of respecting individual and property rights.” Absolutely the government “should have little to no authority to dictate what person does with their own person or property.” And absolutely Brexit vote to abandon the European Union (EU) was a resounding success!

Yiannopoulos is still stuck in that quaint old British new world order school of thought which suggests that a hodgepodge of nationalism. jingoism, xenophobia, mercantilism (which also signifies protectionism), feudalism, and a vibrant, euphemistic fetishism for a blending of militarism and economic fascism are the central core of a regimented economy and society, because enterprises and individuals of all stripes must be conditioned to worship the State the Donald Trump way. If everyone subscribes to his mindset, which is just as lethal and politically correct as the left that he claims about, he would command a great deal of power of the minds of every individual than he would deserve at the very least.

The fact that he is a renowned public speaker, journalist, entrepreneur, and an uproariously offensive social media darling in the alt-right world is an understatement. It is also an understatement to say that he employs his conservesque brand of political correctness so that all individuals would exemplify the “ordered society” for which he terribly craves.

Yiannopoulos’ Ban from Twitter and the Reasons Why It Happened

What is not an understatement is the fact that he has had his  Twitter account @Nero’s blue badge confiscated by the company and has been banned on Twitter because he harassed Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones by calling her “a black dude” and that she was “barely literate.”

Here are some of the screen shots that chronicle what followed:

milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-1-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-2-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-3-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-4-07-20-2016Of course Jones responded:

What people don’t know is that Yiannopoulos either employed a fake Twitter generator and used Jones account handle @Lesdoggg to create fake tweet or shared them with everyone on the site, making it look like she was employing a homophobic tweet against Milo.

Here’s one of the tweets in question:

One other tweet that Milo had faked was this one (which was actually a collection of two tweets rolled into one):

milos-tweet-clip-1

Here’s another fact to point out here: after Yiannopoulos was banned from the site, conservatives and many members of the alt-right community on the site feed crafted a new hashtag: #FreeMilo.

Here are a slew of conservative and libertarian Twitter users who acted out against the company for its censorship tactics:

and finally,

The reason for Milo’s Twitter ban is obviously: he did harass Jones, especially while he resorted to name-calling. While Jones herself isn’t exactly a Girl Scout herself given that she’s had a racist history evidenced on her account, she didn’t deserve the trolling and the fake account using her name bullshit which she was forced to endure.Yiannopoulos *INDEED* violated the site’s policies. How, you ask? Well, there are three rules of free speech that no one with a pulse worth their salt should *EVER* break:

  1. Never directly threat someone via Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
  2. Never slander someone on Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
  3. Never libel someone via Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.

Did Milo directly threaten Jones on Twitter? No, he did not.

Did Milo slander Jones on Twitter? No, he did not.

Did Milo libel Jones on Twitter? Yes, he did *JUST* that.

He broke one of the three cardinal tenets of free speech: you never slander anyone by falsely attributing statements that the other writer didn’t write. If anything, it’s unethical, immoral, and it’s not even protected by the First Amendment. And it’s antithetical to everything that we hold dear in our hearts.

If anything, Leslie Jones has a legal case that she can pursue against Yiannopoulos, and with that evidence available, it’s very likely that she’ll win, and Milos would have no choice but to agree to a hefty settlement. That would be a grand price to pay.

Although I initially defended Milo over his right to free speech, I should’ve realized then that he would never defend your right to free speech as he is politically correct himself and he must be defending Trump who promises to open up the libel laws against anyone who makes a truthful claim about him, right or wrong.

It’s about time Milo states that he is *NOT* a libertarian. After all, we are talking about someone who refers to Trump as “Daddy.” He is a conservative statist who wants liberty for himself but no one else.

As libertarian and Libertarian activist Avens O’Brien recently noted on Milo due to the release of the Libertarian Republic‘s published article on him:

avens-obrien-on-milo-yiannopoulos-clip-1-10-23-2016

And, as Gary Johnson and Libertarian activist supporter Krystle Berger quips:

krystal-bergers-comment-on-milo-on-my-facebook-wall-clip-1-10-24-2016

I just wish other libertarians and conservatives who flock to and love him would see that clearly for once.