Archive for April, 2009

Anatomy of a Coup

Posted in Back Door Politics by R Lee Wrights on April 30th, 2009

by Mike Seebeck

Most Libertarians who follow or take an interest in the goings on in the LP are aware of the current Lee Wrights situation.  To summarize, Lee is on the LNC, and his dues lapsed, and rather than properly notify Lee of the problem, the Secretary decided to act unilaterally (and in violation of the Bylaws) and inform Lee that because his dues lapsed, he was removed from the LNC-never mind that such a decision mid-term lies with the LNC by voting him off, or with Lee himself, and neither occurred.

But I have news for you-Lee just happens to be a convenient pawn in a much larger game, and Lee’s outspokenness has been a thorn in the side of certain persons on the LNC who seem to be obsessed not with being the biggest fish in the LP pond, but with being the only fish.

Well, the picture has become much clearer now, and the attempts to accomplish that objective have been exposed, piece by piece, over the last couple of years.  Here I detail what that plan is, and how it has been set about.

(Keep in mind, I’m a Bylaws and nuts-and-bolts guy who has little use for Platform debates, and that’s how I can look at things.)

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (3)

Why “God” is a useful concept

Posted in Random Thoughts by R Lee Wrights on April 29th, 2009

by Donna Mancini

The idea of God seems to be a way for human beings to deny the distasteful reality that hustlers and mobs, who are people just like themselves, are stealing their property and running their lives. And, they are not only getting away with it but they are getting the approval of the vast majority. They are receiving big time recognition and numerous rewards in cash and in kind for it!

Religious people say they only obey, respect and follow “God’s” laws and commandments, but how do they know what these particular rules are? They got the information from other human beings, who said they happened to get it from God? Why them and not you? Why thousands of years ago and not now? Why in secret with only a few witnesses?

There is no way for a so-called God to tell anyone what to do or enforce any rule with out using human beings as a “tool” in the process. Therefore, rule by God is impossible and rule by other human beings is a disaster, no matter who they are. An individual without choices and freedom to use ones own body or property at will is a mere slave.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (1)

Redpath admits he is unfit to lead

Posted in Back Door Politics by R Lee Wrights on April 28th, 2009

by Sean Haugh

The plot thickened over the weekend with an email from Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Chair Bill Redpath to the board, giving them his reasoning behind his recent actions and inactions in his attempt to purge Lee Wrights from the LNC.

It is not an explanation however, but rather a confession.  His note gives us the worst of both worlds - admitting he is acting out of the most petty personal reasons without moving away from his plan to tear our party in half.  In my opinion, it is an open admission by Redpath that he is unfit for leadership in any capacity.

If Redpath had the first clue about how to lead this party, he would understand that his personal offense at another’s words is quite irrelevant.  It wouldn’t matter if an LNC member regularly compared him to Adolph Hitler, or made rude comments about his dog.  The courtesy he must extend to all members of the LNC is not dependent upon how he feels he has been treated.  As Chair, he is committed to lead the whole party and not just the faction that does the best job of stroking his ego.

Even if Redpath is right to be offended by our reporting of the facts, does that justify blatantly ignoring our party Bylaws?  Does it justify usurping the authority of the LNC and allowing our Treasurer and Secretary to make decisions by fiat?  Does it justify making up entirely fictional government regulations, and using this lie to purge our party membership?  Does it justify purging the board of people our own membership elected in convention to represent us?  Is Bill Redpath’s personal vendetta against two people a justification for his policy decisions which are destructive to the entire party?

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (10)

Dammit, Janet

Posted in Jefferson D.C. by R Lee Wrights on April 27th, 2009

by Peter Orvetti

As the father of two four-year-olds, I am very familiar with the grudging, insincere “apology” offered to get out of trouble.  I am also familiar with the follow-up apology coughed up when ordered to “say it like you mean it.”  After first offering a few insultingly tepid words of contrition to America’s veterans for issuing a report suggesting they might decide to imitate the terrorists they were supposedly fighting abroad, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano offered a second apology on Friday.  This time, Napolitano probably was actually sorry — that her agency’s misstep might have imperiled the $42.7 billion President Obama has allocated for it for the next fiscal year.

The report on the possible “resurgence in radicalization and recruitment” by “rightwing extremists” was produced by something called the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division — which sounds more like somewhere Jack Bauer would work than an agency within a republic’s government.  As seven U.S. senators wrote in a letter to Napolitano, the report “identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration, and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats.”  The senators rightly point out that these are “citizens exercising their First Amendment rights,” not terrorists.  They are, in fact, exercising the rights DHS is supposedly protecting.

The DHS report begins with the caveat that it has “no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence” and goes on to say threats “have been largely rhetorical.”  Commenting on the report, American Civil Liberties Union policy counsel Michael German said, “I don’t think there’s any American who has acted in any way politically who couldn’t see themselves in one of the descriptions they use for extremists.  In many ways it reflects a concern that we are beginning to criminalize or attach criminal intent to actual political views and ideologies.”

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

End the Fed!

Posted in Tuma's Toons by R Lee Wrights on April 26th, 2009

by Kevin Tuma

 

 
Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

Obama pushing treaty to ban reloading

Posted in Back Door Politics by R Lee Wrights on April 25th, 2009

by GOA staff

Even BB guns could be on the chopping block!

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who “wasn’t going to take away our guns”?

Well, guess what?

Less than 100 days into his administration, he’s never met a gun he didn’t hate.

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners.

It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (4)

How government advances immorality

Posted in LFA Flashback by R Lee Wrights on April 24th, 2009

by Donna Mancini

Donna ManciniAccording to the Encarta Dictionary; morality is standards of conduct that are accepted as right or proper.

In reality Government functions as Robin Hood. Government officially, and with the blessing of most of its charges, steals from Peter to pay Paul.  But to keep Peter from complaining and getting too upset, government throws him a few crumbs. Needless to say, Peter doesn’t like or need the crumbs the government is throwing his way. But, in order to avoid a confrontation which most people fear and will do almost anything to avoid, the people say the crumbs are better than nothing and rationalize that they like the government’s actions/crumbs in order to avoid the unpleasant task of changing or rebelling against the monster.

There are only three physical reactions to the events of ones life:  Fight, flight or go with the flow. To go with the flow is the easiest, and most prudent, until one reaches such seriously dire straits that danger is imminent. Only then do you have to deal with it, and choose fight or flight. But after several generations of going with the flow the average person gets used to and accepts what used to annoy him.  He or she has lived under the yoke so long that the current moral and political code becomes normal, traditional and  “right” in their point of view.  It is the way things are and always have been.  Thus is born the philosophy of, “The way things should be.”

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

Maybe you are next!

Posted in Dangerous Politics by R Lee Wrights on April 23rd, 2009

by Mike Seebeck

The section of the CFR Aaron Starr cites in his bogus memo relates to federal election campaigns, specifically back to federal law, 2 USC 431-442.

It does NOT apply to political party officers or their dues, but rather contributions to candidates and their campaigns.

Specifically, Aaron cites 11 CFR 110.4, which ties back to 2 USC 441f:

Section 441f. Contributions in name of another prohibited

No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.

BUT:

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (10)

The LNC purge is on, and you’re next

Posted in LNC Reports by R Lee Wrights on April 23rd, 2009

by Sean Haugh

Below is a memo written by our LNC Treasurer Aaron Starr which lays the groundwork for a massive purge of our membership.  It is based upon a deliberate misunderstanding concocted by Starr, which he details in great length below.

In order to justify their own activity to purge Lee Wrights from the LNC, in blatant violation of our own Bylaws, Starr, Chair Bill Redpath, Secretary Bob Sullentrup and interim Executive Director Robert Kraus have detailed their conspiracy in this memo to destroy our party.

Unless the LNC grows a backbone and puts these conspirators in their place, by the logic given below, the next victim of the purge will be my wife Pam Adams, as well as anyone else who membership dues were paid by their spouse, a family member, or a friend.  As the person who pays the bills in this household, I routinely pay her bills from my own account.

This is not fantasy.  Towards the end of the memo, Starr openly states that’s exactly what they intend to do.  If your membership dues were paid by another person, you will be purged.

Starr’s memo openly admits that our expensive database system (Raiser’s Edge) has never been right and by using it we have lost massive amounts of data about our members and their membership histories.  And yet he asserts that this shall be the official record by which all following decisions shall be made.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (21)

Begging for freedom

Posted in Liberty's Friend by R Lee Wrights on April 22nd, 2009

by Larken Rose

How many people really believe in unalienable rights? How many people really believe in freedom? Not many. Even among those who call themselves pro-freedom, many still have some residue of the slave mentality.

Let’s use the example of the right of self defense, which is the basis for the right to possess weapons, such as firearms (as acknowledged in the Second Amendment). Even among gun owners, how many people really consider self-defense a “right”? Almost all gun owners would say they believe it’s a right, but do they really? Here is a test: If owning a firearm was “illegal,” would you still have the right to do it? Suppose the Second Amendment was repealed, via the proper procedures for amending the Constitution. And suppose the feds, and all the states, then outlawed private gun ownership entirely. Would you still have the right to be armed?

Yes, you would. And at this point, I expect most gun owners would say the same, although the discussion would be making some of them start to feel a bit nervous. You see, people have been so indoctrinated into viewing politician commands as some morally binding gospel, which they call “law,” that they feel uncomfortable even discussing the concept of violating such so-called “law” in order to protect individual rights.

Let’s go one step further. If the Second Amendment was repealed, and private gun ownership was outlawed, and the police showed up at your house to take yours, would you have the right to use any means necessary to stop them? Would you have the right to start gunning down “law enforcers” if they tried to disarm you? Quite a few gun owners (including me) would still say, “Hell, yes, I would!” But others would hesitate and squirm. And that’s where someone’s real principles can be seen. If you believe in individual rights, then you have to believe that nothing–no election, no legislation, nothing–can take them away. (That’s what “unalienable” means.) As Jefferson explained in the Declaration of Independence, if those calling themselves “government” decide to violate your rights, you have every right–the duty, even–to resist, including with deadly force, if necessary.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (8)

« Previous entries