Thursday, November 10, 2022

What's the Difference Between a Libertarian and a Librarian?

Sounds like the beginning of a riddle, but it's not.

Just a few days ago, my friend Bill, the state chairman of the Libertarian Party of Delaware as it happens, approached one of the local libraries in northern Delaware to propose a Liberty Story Hour. The program was to be presented by him and perhaps a colleague or two. The program would feature stories about the founding fathers, limited government, responsible spending, etc. and would be tailored to children and be presented in an age appropriate way.

Bill got a very polite response from the library.



Thank you so much for the program description. I spoke to my manager about the program and we are going to pass. While we appreciate the literacy aspect of this, we just don't think this would be a good fit for our public library. Again, thank you for considering us!

Have a great evening.

Signed xxxxxxxx


Her Title xxxxxxx

That was a polite response, right? If the response had been written in Ordinary English then I'd have said yes. It was a polite response. But the response wasn't written in Ordinary English. That was Bureaucrat English. When you translate from Bureaucrat English to Ordinary English, what Bill really got was a big fat Fuck You! Yes, I realize that this paragraph gets cut if published anywhere else but on my own blog, but I had to get it out of my system!

Not a good fit for "our library?" What does that mean exactly? Not in keeping with "our" community standards maybe? Not in keeping with "our" politics perhaps? Back in 2019, another local library held a Drag Queen Story Time. Oh, you thought those only happened in places like San Francisco or Boston or New York City? Nope. This Drag Queen Story Time was held right here in our own back yard at the Old New Castle Library. I'll emphasize, it was not the same library my friend Bill approached, but they're both right here in our community.

Now, let me just say, it's not that I was a huge advocate of Liberty Story Hour, but I didn't oppose it either. It seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and a wise man once told me, "Don't criticize someone's activism just because it isn't your particular brand of activism." So I'm not writing this article to advocate for Liberty Story Hour in our public libraries. I'm not even writing this article to oppose Drag Queen Story Times in those libraries. There are plenty of others who may be motivated to write those articles and God bless them. I'm writing this article to ask just how relevant libraries are these days. And maybe to talk a little bit about pronouns. Heaven forgive me, but we have to take a little time to talk about those pronouns.

I'm a traditionalist. I don't use pronouns. By the way, traditionalist is not a dog whistle for bigot, homophobe, xenophobe or any other "phobe." It's not even a dog whistle for conservative. I'm a Libertarian. Tradition is not a dirty word, and it's not a dog whistle for anything else. If you want to talk about a dog whistle, let's talk about those pronouns! Would anybody have any difficulty guessing on which end of the political spectrum or even the tradition spectrum that librarian resides? Not once you realize what information listing your pronouns really conveys. Now that's a dog whistle. To be honest, I'm grateful for this dog whistle. The message comes through loud and clear. I think we know who we're dealing with here. Perhaps Bill should have offered to do Liberty Story Hour in drag.

Oddly enough, on reflection, I realized that despite having read that librarian's email several times, I had never noticed what her pronouns were. Don't misunderstand me. I recognized that she had listed her pronouns, but the information those pronouns were meant to convey, never registered with me. I don't mock this librarian for whatever sexual orientation those pronouns reveal. I mock her for the arrogance, the presumptuousness, the narcissism that posting them reveals. I don't ridicule her based on any new awareness of who she prefers to have sex with. I ridicule her for presuming that I care, or even that I should care!

So, enough about pronouns. What about libraries?

There is a lot of controversy surrounding what those of us with traditional values see as an attempt to indoctrinate children in our public schools. Between the 1619 Project, climate alarmism, Gay Pride, and all the other woke agendas being pushed in our public schools, it's surprising they have any time left to teach the ABC's. Judging by test scores, maybe they don't. I think it's time to recognize that, generally speaking, the same woke ideologues who control the education system in this country, also control most of the libraries. It used to be the responsible thing to do to promote and fund libraries in your community. Is it still such a good idea? If libraries have become the domain of propagandists and indoctrinators, maybe the answer is no.

Maybe that librarian did my friend Bill a favor by rejecting his idea for a Liberty Story Hour. Why would a traditionalist want to lure parents of impressionable kids into a library to get habituated to a system that may allow you your Liberty Story Hour this week, but next week might be sponsoring a field trip for six year olds to the local drag bar. They could use Liberty Story Hour as a gateway to introduce your kids to all the other woke agendas to which they are so devoted. Parents have a difficult enough time fending off that indoctrination in the public schools. If you're one of those traditional parents, why would you then willingly subject your children to the same propaganda at the library? Especially if these programs are predominantly run by a bunch of woke, pronoun sporting harpies more interested in recruiting soldiers for "the cause" than in promoting the welfare of your kids.

I used to be a huge fan of libraries. Once upon a time, I was also a big fan of Public Radio, but they've managed to ruin that too. I spent a lot of time in libraries. At one time, I looked forward to my retirement years when I could spend even more time in libraries. Then a funny thing happened. This new thing called the internet came along, and all of a sudden, libraries just didn't seem that relevant any more. These days, that's what the internet is for. Maybe its time to realize that even though it was once a good idea to promote libraries to your children, perhaps in today's climate, that's not so important. Is blind devotion to the anachronistic idea of a physical library really such sound thinking? As far as public policy is concerned, perhaps less money should be devoted to libraries and a bit more focus placed on ensuring an internet free of viewpoint censorship.

There was a time when criticizing libraries would have been considered almost sacrilegious, and I'm sure there are hordes of angry, blue haired, pierced, and tattooed, Bernie loving librarians organizing, even as we speak, preparing the campaign to get me canceled for daring to speak against the institution. For them, I offer this:

A Libertarian walks into a library and asks the librarian for an ounce of legal cannabis. The librarian replies indignantly, "Sir, this is a library." The Libertarian apologizes, leans in a bit closer and WHISPERS back, "Sorry. I'd like an ounce of legal cannabis."


Sunday, April 17, 2022

Just in Time for Easter, Marijuana Legislation is Resurrected in Delaware

 On March 10th of this year, House Bill 305, a bill to legalize marijuana, failed in the General Assembly.  Contrary to the conventional wisdom, many Libertarians were glad to see this legislation go down in flames (or if you prefer, up in smoke).  Sure, it legalized recreational cannabis, but it also created a labyrinth of taxation, regulation, compliance obstacles and licensing carve outs for favored Democratic social justice constituencies.  You could forget about the mom and pop pot businesses and a new cash crop for local farmers.  The numbers of growers, manufacturers and retailers was to be strictly regulated.  Licenses were to be limited and expensive.  This bill was written with the Corporate Cannabis Industry in mind.  It was a crony capitalist's wet dream.  And it didn't allow for home grow either.  The State's alcohol regulations allow home hobbyists to brew beer and make wine for personal consumption.  Why no similar concessions to the casual cannabis enthusiast with some potted plants (pun intended) in his basement under a grow light?  Good riddance to a bad bill.  We want legalized weed, but not at any price.  The next time, we'll get a better bill, and as it turns out, the next time might be now.

Several days ago I saw that Delaware Representative Ed Osienski (D-Newark), the sponsor of the failed HB 305, had introduced two new bills to try again to legalize marijuana in the state.  One bill, (HB 371) is short and sweet; just over two pages.  It legalizes possession for recreational use, in private, of under an ounce, by those 21 and over, if acquired without remuneration.  I know there were an awful lot of clauses in that last sentence, but as laws go, what could be simpler than that?  Don't ask how one is presumed to have obtained said marijuana if you can't buy it or grow it.  It's like they're saying you can privately smoke all the free marijuana you can get your hands on as long as you get it in less than one ounce quantities.  The new bill fails to address how to find those generous  philanthropists who are presumably going to be giving away all that free marijuana.   This minor omission  reminds me of the South Park story of the underpants gnomes and their mystery plan for making profit.  

But there is more to the story.  Accompanying HB 371, the legalization bill, is HB 372, the taxation and regulation bill.  And where HB 371 is just over two pages and relatively easy for a layperson to understand, HB 372 is almost 50 pages long and will put even the average insomniac to sleep after the first few paragraphs.  I'm sure there are no hidden surprises or corporate giveaways anywhere in those fifty or so pages of legislative legal jargon.  In describing the new legislation, the State News quoted Representative Osienski as follows:

“I think the whole idea of breaking it up into two is allowing those that have concerns about legalization to have the opportunity to vote no on it, but then have the opportunity to vote yes on regulation,”

When I first read this, I was furious.  I thought to myself, "How hypocritical can these politicians get?  The original bill failed, and in its resurrected form they are more concerned with cementing in place the horrible taxation and the regulation parts and to hell with the personal liberty aspect of legalization."  I was reminded of the Lily Tomlin quote.  "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up!" I was really pissed, but it turns out, I was wrong. And wrong in a good way.

 Every once in a while something happens to remind me that I'm not as smart as I think I am.  This was one of those times.  It turns out that tax related bills have a higher threshold for passage than other routine pieces of legislation.  Regular bills require a simple majority, but tax bills require a 3/5 vote in order to pass.  The original HB 305 which contained both legalization and taxation failed despite a vote of 23 in favor and 14 opposed because this bill required 25 votes in order to pass. No Republicans supported the bill, and four Representatives, two Republicans and two Democrats, did not vote.  It missed passage by only two votes.  Close, but no cigar.  

So what happens now?  Well, legalization alone as defined in HB 371 only requires a simple majority to pass the House.  There are already enough co-sponsors of the bill to insure that happens.  Of course, we don't know how the bill will fare in the Senate, and the Governor has expressed opposition to marijuana legalization in the past. And overriding a veto would require a 3/5 vote of both chambers, so we would be right back where we started.  Still, I wonder if the Representatives who did not vote last time could be persuaded to support the new legalization bill.  Perhaps a few Republicans could even be persuaded to do the same if they could successfully amend HB 372 to reduce the taxation aspects of that legislation.  Representative Michael Smith (R-Newark)  had suggested he might have supported the old bill had the Democrats been willing to agree to certain amendments that would have allowed past felony convictions for certain tax or drug related crimes to be considered when approving licenses.  On the face of it, those sound like reasonable amendments.  I'm not sure why Democrats in the House let HB 305 fail last March rather than adopt those changes.  Maybe there is more to the story.  I'd like to know what happened in the smoke filled room back then, because that drama is about to be replayed, and I'd like to see a different outcome this time, hopefully resulting in the passage of cannabis legalization.

 So what should we advocate for going forward?  Well, obviously we want to support legislators in the House who are already supporting HB 371 and encourage the others, both Republicans and Democrats, to join them to form a veto proof majority.  And of course, we need to urge the members of the Senate to do likewise.  If we could accomplish that, I'd be happy to see HB 372 simply fail.  Wouldn't that be a delicious bit of irony.  Legislators try to manipulate the parliamentary system to secure more tax revenue and service special interests and accidentally succeed in advancing personal liberty without scoring any of the graft.  It's almost like a Libertarian fairy tale come true.  But let's be honest.  That's not going to happen.  If HB 371 passed and HB 372 failed, the Governor would simply veto HB 371, and the General Assembly would find an excuse not to override.  

It looks like we might be pretty close to a win in Delaware for cannabis legalization. How far can we push legislators to improve these bills without the whole enterprise failing again like it did last time?  Well, the first thing to say is, if the bills aren't improved, then I for one would just as soon see them fail again.  Now is not the time to be timid.  Time is on our side.  Legalization will eventually become a reality.  There is no need to sell out to Corporate Cannabis when we are this close.  Let them want legalization more than we do.  We'll get a better bill with that mindset, even if it takes a little longer. 

So, if we aren't likely to get HB 371 without HB 372, what do we want to change?  First and foremost, I would say, add home grow.  That has got to be top of the list from the individual freedom point of view.  If it's good enough for alcohol, it's good enough for cannabis.  I can't think of any excuse but a lame one for refusing to add that.  I will never be convinced that such an omission wasn't the result of  industry lobbying.  Limit quantities if you must, but under no circumstances should we accept a bill that handcuffs aficionados of the noble herb to a product marketed by Phillip Morris or Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.  After that, legislators should be pushed to increase the number of licenses issued to grow, manufacture and sell, and to lower the costs of those licenses along with the rate of taxation applied. How can the State expect to eliminate the black market for cannabis if their taxation and regulatory structure prices the legal stuff out of the market?  And ditch the special carve outs for licensing Democrats' favored special interest constituencies.  With an abundance of licenses, they shouldn't be needed anyway.  These new laws should provide a windfall to Delaware farmers and entrepreneurs, not to the State and large corporate interests.  If Republicans can't stop legalization, and they refuse to support it, let them at least apply a more capitalist friendly structure to the regulation.  With a little bit of effort, maybe we can shame them into following those illusory free market principles they claim to believe in.  Or is that another fairy tale?  

Delaware legislators are giving Cannabis legalization a Mulligan this year.  Let's hope they don't screw it up this time.

Thursday, November 11, 2021

My Open Letter to the LNC


10 November 2021 

From: Jess McVay 

To: Susan Hogarth 

Dear Susan: 

 My name is Jess McVay. I don't think we have met before but I believe you are acquainted with my wife and son, Mary Pat and Will. I am not directly involved in this recent dispute over who rightfully controls the State Board of Delaware and its assets, but as you might imagine, sharing a last name with two of the principals and opposing their actions in the strongest possible terms, I feel compelled to write. A more conventional letter might start by lamenting how much it pains me to involve myself in this matter in light of the family relationships involved, but I must confess that at this moment, I do not feel any such pain. I am Will's dad. I love my son, but I hate what he did. As for the pain, I fully anticipate that some day in the not too distant future, I will feel the full weight of that burden. But as for now, there is an urgent problem in Delaware that must be addressed. There will be time for family considerations later. In the meantime, I am trying, though occasionally failing, to temper my actions, in anticipation of the difficulties my position may introduce into these relationships. Principles must be defended, often at great cost, and sometimes even when it involves conflict with family. 

I wish to express my outrage at the travesty that is unfolding in Delaware and demand action from the Libertarian National Committee. Some bad actors in Delaware, led by my son, are perverting justice, robbing Delaware Libertarians of their rights, and embarrassing Libertarians all over the country, not just in Delaware. One of my earliest reactions upon learning of what was happening was that somewhere in America, James Weeks is dancing again. When our ideological adversaries want to argue how ridiculous we are as a political force, they will no longer invoke the name of James Weeks. From now on, Will McVay will be the poster child for their derision. Great news for Mr Weeks, and perhaps, contrary to what you might expect, great news for Will as well. Will likes attention. For those on the Libertarian National Committee who have a responsibility to preserve the reputation of the Libertarian Party, this incident poses both an obstacle and an opportunity. I think the reason it's an obstacle is obvious. It would take too much time and sidetrack the purpose of this letter to recount the myriad of injuries that Will has visited upon the party, its image, and its Delaware membership, a few specific members in particular. I'll leave it to the principals in this matter to make that case. They have been working diligently to assemble the evidence that will inform the jury, so to speak, and compel them to act in favor of Chairman Hinds and his Board. My goal with this letter is to persuade the Committee that it has an opportunity, and more importantly, an urgent responsibility to see justice done, restore integrity in Delaware, and not incidentally in the process, to protect the Party's image throughout the nation. In the process it must also censure those who have demonstrated such contempt for both justice and integrity and who, with a casual disregard for the optics of their actions, have seriously jeopardized the Party's reputation. 

So who the hell am I, and why should the LNC care? I am one of the nation's small L libertarians, and I am watching. To be honest, I am presently one of the nation's less committed libertarians, at least these days. I used to be more committed. I've been an active member of the Party in Delaware since roughly 2010. Over the years I've helped directly with campaigns, actively raised and contributed money, and held positions on the State Board. I've been a delegate to national conventions, helped plan state conventions, and I even represented the Party as a candidate for governor several years ago. But lately I have become disillusioned. I was uninspired by the Party's 2020 candidate and more recently, I was disappointed by the Party's tepid response to COVID policy and social media censorship. It would be no exaggeration to say that I felt as politically homeless inside the Libertarian Party as I had felt outside it prior to 2010. Currently, I am a registered Libertarian once again, but I am not confident that I will remain one indefinitely. I have many friends in the party, but I'm not convinced the Libertarian Party is the answer to promoting liberty in America. Delaware is the bluest of blue states, and the LPD's success in Delaware consists of little else beyond showing the flag. The National LP seems distant, impotent, and more and more irrelevant to me with every passing day. And yet, despite all this, I came back. I'm back, but I'm not sure how long I'll be staying. I'm just like thousands and thousands of other big L Libertarians and small L libertarians across the nation, and we are watching. 

 In making any future decisions whether to stay or go, I do know how I will judge the Party going forward. A clue resides in the Pinned Tweet that I placed on my Twitter feed way back in February 2021, long before all this business happened. It's a brief reflection. Not borrowed from anyone else, but my own composition. 

Not Victory 

Not Wealth 

Not Love 

Not Peace 

Oddly enough, not even Liberty 


Justice was important to me then. Justice is important to me now. The search for Justice is the only reason I am bothering to write this letter. I'm writing because there are victims of injustice, not because those victims happen to belong to the Mises Caucus. Most victims of injustice are far removed from the world I live in. I am often helpless to assist them. But these Delaware victims are close to home, and they are friends of mine. The fact that my family members are responsible for their victimization imposes an even greater duty on me to support them. My reasons have very little to do with the Libertarian Party of Delaware. Despite a long association with the LPD, I'm not enthusiastic about their prospects for political success. And my reasons are certainly not about the National LP. They are just a means to an end. They are the one institution that has it in their power to see justice done if they're up to the task that is. If they're even willing to try. I'm not sure I'll be sticking around the Libertarian Party after this go round. At this point, it's kind of up to the party to prove they're worthy of my support. If this was a job interview, I'd be the one asking the questions to see if we're a good fit, not the other way around. I can tell you one thing with certainty. I say this dispassionately and with no anger and no malice. If the LP can't fix this, the Party is dead to me. As I said before, I am watching. Big L and small L libertarians just like me all over the country are watching. 

 I am not a member of the Mises Caucus, but I have many friends within that group, some old, and some new. My son will state in public and occasionally for the podcast cameras that the coup he initiated, though he won't call it a coup, has nothing to do with the Mises Caucus. He'll claim it has to do with obstruction and gridlock on the Board, with misunderstandings about Board members' affiliations, and about protecting the social media image of the Delaware Party. But he'll insist it has nothing to do with the Mises Caucus. That's simply not true. I am Williams father. I am greatly saddened and a bit perplexed by his recent actions, but I can tell you one thing with certainty. This as absolutely about the Mises Caucus. I don't think that factionalism within a state board is a bad thing, and even if it is, it's a normal thing. For the past decade or so, the Delaware Board did not know factionalism. They were a close knit group of like minded friends with the common goal of more Liberty. In 2021, that changed. It became more factional, just like hundreds of other political party boards all over the country. The goal was still Liberty, but now there were different views on how best to pursue it. Normal boards develop ways to deal with factionalism. Indeed, why would boards resort to formats like Robert's Rules if not as an acknowledgment that factionalism exists, and it can be dealt with reasonably. There are ways to coexist with fellow Libertarians who may not agree with you on everything. You approach them with good faith and an open mind. You don't murder them while they sleep. 

A week or so after all this started I called Will. I figured that despite my anger over what he'd done, I owed him a rational conversation on the subject. I tried to talk him off this ledge he was on. I focused on things like ethics and integrity, and most of all on Justice. He listened patiently to my arguments. I hoped I was getting through to him. I began to speculate on possible outcomes and whether any of the party leadership would permit him to continue an active role after what he'd done. I doubted it, and I told him so. When I was done he responded. He wasn't going to quit. He asked me why I ever thought he would. He said he thought he could win. Naturally, his response disappointed me. It reminded me of the story of Stalin's response to a French diplomat who suggested that Stalin stop his persecution of Russian Catholics. Stalin asked the diplomat how many divisions the Pope had. 



This wasn't about ethics to Will. This was about power. At that point the phone conversation ended. In the days that followed, Will seems to have become even more determined to persist. Two nights ago, gloating and surrounded by a few of his supporters and co-conspirators, he declared to me, confidently, assertively, and arrogantly, that it was already over. He had already won. I hope he is wrong. Delaware needs the LNC's help to make it so. 

As normal and reasonable as factionalism is on a State Board, there is no place for politics in the adjudication of this dispute. I worry that the LNC will deal with this as a political matter rather than a judicial one. I'm afraid that the factional affiliations of the Committee members will override whatever commitment they may have to defending our reputation as the Party of Principle. But my concerns notwithstanding, this is the venue in which this portion of the dispute must be resolved. I feel I must emphasize that any and all decisions and judgments that are made must be made on the basis of ethical and procedural considerations, and those decisions must be seen to have been made free of political or factional influences or interventions. I have expressed concerns on my social media pages about the ability of the LNC to take the politics out of this issue and resolve it on its merits. The Committee's recent performance in New Hampshire does not exactly inspire confidence, and as I've already stated, (Cue broken record) Libertarians will be watching. 

High minded values like Justice aside for a moment, there are some other more mundane, more pedestrian, more political, reasons to fix this problem quickly. Many in the media don't care about Libertarians, but what if the media chose to tell this story. What if, for instance, comedian and popular podcaster Dave Smith chose to highlight it? What if that brought it to the attention of outlets like Reason Magazine or Kennedy Nation? What if on some slow news day in the future, Tucker Carlson or Lester Holt ran the story to ridicule the Party and fill a five minute news segment or two? How does the LNC want that story to end? “This crazy stuff happened, and the LP did nothing except let it fester”, or “The LP acted swiftly and fixed the problem.” If this burlesque show performance in Delaware is allowed to succeed, we will see repeats of these destructive and distracting sideshows. Indeed, some would suggest that this episode is not the first, but is itself the repeat. The circumstances strangely resemble those in New Hampshire several months ago. This is a pretty good example of “History does not repeat, but it rhymes.” It's almost as if there was some larger organized plan afoot that is bigger than just Will McVay. If anyone is concerned about the Party's image or even the Party's survival, that should be terrifying. Libertarians are watching. Soon, the whole nation could be watching. 

 I have always been told that if you're trying to persuade someone to do something, don't neglect at some point to directly ask them to do it. Candidates might spend twenty minutes on a stump speech giving the voters all the reasons in the world why they put their trust in that candidate and then never actually ask them for their vote. I won't make that mistake. 

Here's what I'm asking for: 

I'm asking the Committee to recognize that Bill Hinds is the rightful Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Delaware. He was duly elected to that position by a majority of those present at the State Convention in June 2021. 

 I'm asking the Committee to recognize that Amy LePore is the rightful Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Delaware. She was duly elected to that position by a majority of those present at the State Convention in June 2021. 

I'm asking the Committee to recognize that Dave Casey may be an asshole, but he's our asshole, and he is also a rightful Representative to the State Board from Newcastle County. He was duly elected by the members of the Newcastle County Libertarian Party to represent them on the State Board. 

I'm asking the Committee to recognize that Dylan Griffith is a rightful Representative to the State Board from Newcastle County. He was duly elected by the members of the Newcastle County Libertarian Party to represent them on the State Board. 

I'm asking the Committee to declare that none of the actions undertaken by Will McVay or any of his proxies from 1 October 2021 to the present are recognized by the National LP because they did not have proper recognized authority to perform those actions. This includes but is not limited to the Discord meeting held on 1 October and the Zoom call held on 31 October. Their actions are all declared invalid. This includes, but is not limited to all changes to By-laws or Articles of Association, all member and officer expulsions, all Board appointments made during this time period, all County Party disaffiliations, the de-credentialling of all 2161 (as of 1 November 2021) Delaware Libertarians as eligible voting party members, all the selective member re-credentialling, especially those of Will's co-conspirators and allies, all appointments of County level officers and State Board Representatives, the assignment of administrator privileges of all State and County level electronic assets, to Will McVay, and the vetoing of any county level resolutions by the illegitimate State Board, in particular those passed in Kent County where Will is County Chair where Will was rebuked and an investigation of his actions called for. Further, the Committee should state publicly and unequivocally that the basis for these decisions is judicial and procedural. 

 I'm asking the Committee to censure Will McVay for his recent actions. Further, the Committee should state publicly and unequivocally that the basis for this censure is the Committee's determination that his actions were grotesquely unethical and that they showed utter disregard of the Party's reputation and its commitment to remaining the Party of Principle. Further, that Will McVay, as part of this censure, shall not be credentialed as a delegate to the 2022 LP convention from Delaware or any other state. 

I'm asking the Committee to give serious consideration to expanding that censure to other members of Mr. McVay's cabal whose behavior you determine warrants such censure. 

I'm asking the Committee to declare that should any dispute arise in regard to credentialing delegates to the LP National Convention in 2022, the Committee commits to recognizing the delegates endorsed by the duly elected State Board of the LPD as constituted in accordance with the above requested Committee actions and currently Chaired by Mr. Hinds. 

I'm asking the Committee to commit to assisting the duly elected State Board in their efforts to recover their ballot access in Delaware. 

I'm asking the Committee to commit to assisting the duly elected State Board in their efforts to recover access to their social media accounts to include, at the very least, directing all traffic initiated through the National Libertarian Party site to the appropriate sites of the duly elected State Board of Delaware. 

In conclusion: 

They say there are two sides to every story. That's true here too. One side is pursuing justice. 


That side has right on their side, and they can show you all the receipts 

That side has acted ethically and with integrity 

The other side just wants to win. 


Thank you Susan. 

 Feel free to contact me if there are any questions via any of the various venues listed above.

 Please help us Obiwan...

 Yours in Liberty, 

 Jess McVay

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Is Q Anon an Elaborate Psy Op?


Robert Barnes has a theory that Q Anon is a psy-op. A psychological operation developed by somebody to defeat Trump. They promoted a series of false narratives designed to reassure Trump supporters that they were winning, and that all they needed to do was "trust the plan". Every time a prediction failed to come true, they'd come up with a new narrative to explain how it was all still a part of some grand strategy. Like the series of trenches during WW I into which you could retreat when the first one was overrun. Trump would declassify documents, and we'd all live happily ever after. Then the declassified stuff was filled with redactions so you were no wiser than you were before the release. Then Bill Barr got appointed Attorney General and John Durham was on the case. Everyone was waiting for a blockbuster release of information just before the election. We know how that turned out. Thanks for nothing Messrs. Barr and Durham. Trump is luring them into a false sense of security so he can draw out the culprits, some said. He's about to drop the hammer. Every failure was explained by a new promise of victory to come if you just trusted the plan. Like James Lileks over at Ricochet said, it's just like those doomsday cultists who revise the date that the world will end each time a deadline comes and goes and the birds are still singing. If we'd known Durham would turn out to be a dud, would we have expended as little more effort in get out the vote, or countering some of the Democratic lawfare that contributed to gutting mail in ballot security?

Eventually those who were the most committed to trust in the plan put the final nail in the coffin of Trump's struggle to expose the problems with this election. They committed violence at the Capitol. Nobody, and I mean nobody, will listen to the evidence of election irregularities now. The MSM got just what they needed to finally vanquish Donald Trump. So now we get a 24/7 campaign by Democrats, big tech and the press to demonize anybody who supported the president, and they'll push it as far as they can. Winning isn't enough. They want us defeated, demoralized, and silent. Silent by disappointment , silent due to fear of labeling, or silent by force if necessary. Hence the attack on social media. If the masters of psychological operations wrote books about their craft, this one would be a best seller. Trump supporters were lulled into a false sense of security and then tricked into becoming the agents of their own destruction. My guess is that 99% of Q folks probably aren't even in on the con. They're just dupes. The journalists and bloggers who claimed that Trump was playing 3-D chess probably believed it. They weren't stupid. They were naive. Sidney Powell isn't stupid. She was powned (Urban Dictionary: Purely Owned). General McInerney with his stories about Hammer and Scorecard? Probably the same.

So what happens now? Well for starters, anybody with any sense has to disown Q Anon. It's like Buckley purging the John Birchers from the conservative movement in the 50's. I'm sympathetic to the Q folks because I think most of them meant well, but they acted stupidly, and they tainted everything that the populist conservative movement led by Donald Trump really stands for. We all need political allies in order for our ideas to prevail, but there is a limit to how far I will stretch the range of acceptability just to build a bigger coalition. There's no room for bigots and there is no room for Q. And I'm not implying the two are synonymous, but there might be some overlap.

What do these conspirators, whoever they are, do now. Well ideally, they just disappear and cover their tracks. The win would be less decisive if people discovered the truth. No one is in quite as much awe of the magician once they see how the illusion was performed. But the cat is out of the bag. Folks are already whispering about psy-ops. Well, the playbook says discredit those people. Paint them as crazy. Paint them as fringe. If that fails, frame them for sexual misconduct (Scott Ritter). If that fails maybe even kill them (Michael Hastings). Robert Barnes: I love you man. Please behave yourself, and please, please "Be careful out there!" (First TV reference--Hill Street Blues)


Saturday, January 9, 2021




 The previously clandestine and now quite overt censoring of conservative voices on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Platforms has now reached dangerous levels. This is not just about Trump. Social media is critical to modern political discourse. The censorship must be resisted. That means targeting profitability, and that means boycotts. But I won't cut off my nose to spite my face. I will continue to use these platforms in the short term while taking the following measures to abandon them as soon as it is practical. 


1. To the greatest extent possible, I will try to post nearly exclusively on Parler and MeWe 

2. I will post on Twitter and Facebook only links to those Parler and MeWe posts 

3. You are not forced to join those sites to view my posts, but I hope once you are on the sites reading my stuff, you will take the opportunity to join those communities. Please join/follow/friend me when you get there. 

4. Eventually, once those alternative communities have reached the critical mass needed to function as effectively as Twitter and Facebook once did, I will abandon those legacy services entirely. Ironically, with their recent actions, those legacy companies may have accelerated the realization of that network effect functionality. 


In the mean time, here is what else I am doing: 

To the extent possible, I am viewing my favorite video podcasts on Rumble instead of YouTube. They don't censor political speech and their terms are financially much more appealing for content creators. Also, they have plans to incorporate live streaming in the new year. 

I have abandoned Google as my search engine on all platforms. I use Duck Duck Go 

I am researching my options for switching email providers to jettison G-Mail. Looking at Protonmail which offers end to end encryption. They don't mine your emails for data about you to sell. Even if privacy isn't your primary concern, you'll be incrementally robbing Google of a source of revenue. 


I'm @Exaeroman at Parler 

I'm Jesse McVay at MeWe


Feel free to visit me on Parler or MeWe and comment if you have other suggestions for alternative social media platforms. 

If you agree with this approach to taking back Social Media Freedom, please share and ReTweet (Echo) this post.