Idaho Libertarian Times

Op Ed: Communist Party chair endorses 'lesser of two evils'

by R. Lee Wrights  

BURNET, Texas (Aug. 7) - Even though he said he was "disappointed" by "some aspects" of President Obama's domestic and foreign policy, the chairman of the Communist Party has endorsed the President for reelection in 2012. Writing in The People's World, CPUSA chair Sam Webb said, "In our view, the differences between the two parties of capitalism are of consequence to class and democratic struggles."

At first, my reaction was to think, laugh and mutter, "So what;" not only has history irrefutably established that communism is a failed and unworkable political system, with leaders like Webb there is no way it will ever be considered a viable or meaningful political force in the United States. Then I thought that this was a classic example of a third party leader advocating a vote for the "lesser of two evils," thus ensuring that the party he leads will never, ever be viable.
First, Webb admits that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party are "anti-capitalist," criticizes the president for caving in to "conservative pressures coming from some congressional Democrats and members of the administration," and makes excuses because President Obama has to govern "in a very hostile political environment in which the right is laboring overtime to wreck its initiatives at every step of the way."
Then he claims it does make a difference which of the two major parties wins because "despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election ... was historic and gave space to struggle for a people's agenda." Webb doesn't seem to understand that if you decide to vote for the "lesser of two evils" you still will get evil. Webb is so obsessed with the "far right" and its agenda to "bring this administration and country to its knees" intent on returning to "racist, anti-labor, anti-women, homophobic and militarist" polices that he's blinded to the clear example of the very same evils prevalent in the Democratic administration.
President Obama has waffled, waived and dragged his feet on his promise to end the homophobic "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military. He has not only expanded the war in Afghanistan, but started a war against Libya, and bombed at least seven countries, including supposed U.S. allies, killing thousands of innocent people while dismissing these murders as "collateral damage." Most egregiously, President Obama has claimed the immoral and unconstitutional right to murder American citizens he calls terrorists.
Under the Democratic Attorney General, the U.S. Justice Department has harassed and intimated anti-war protestors, busting into their homes in early morning raids and confiscating their belongings. Federal drug agents continue to harass, raid the homes, arrest, jail and prosecute sick people for legally using medical marijuana under the laws of their state. The government makes war on its own citizens. The same citizens who keep voting for, hoping for and praying for a lesser evil.
No doubt some people will harp on the CPUSA endorsement as further proof that President Obama is a "communist." That would be unfortunate and misleading, since the tactic of "guilt by association" is so often used to discredit and hence marginalize any political person -- including libertarians. It is also irrelevant because what matters is not labels but actions. By his actions, President Obama has shown himself to be no friend of the "oppressed" people Webb and his comrades revere - and certainly no friend of Liberty and Freedom.
Will this endorsement impact the next presidential election? Probably not, but who knows? Either way, I would not even expect the president to give it a second thought. I know I wouldn’t if I were he. Something else I also know, President Obama will welcome the Communist Party members to come vote for him on Election Day, and he will not care why they vote for him.
So sadly lost in all the political prancing of partisan posturing is the fact that, great or small, voting for evil begets evil. Always has… always will. As long as we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, evil "always" wins. Nothing else has a chance to win but - evil. If one of the choices offered is not "no evil at all," then there really is no choice at all. It is better that we stand united in insisting that we deserve a true choice.
“If we move in mass, be it ever so circuitously, we shall attain our object; but if we break into squads, everyone pursuing the path he thinks most direct,we become an easy conquest to those who can now barely hold us in check.”- Thomas Jefferson
-30-
R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and co-founder and editor of of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now lives and works in Texas.



LINK: LEE WRIGHTS FOR PRESIDENT

Op Ed: Voting for the lesser of two evils

"If we move in mass, be it ever so circuitously, we shall attain our object; but if we break into squads, everyone pursuing the path he thinks most direct,we become an easy conquest to those who can now barely hold us in check." - Thomas Jefferson

by R. Lee Wrights
BURNET, Texas (Aug. 3) - It never ceases to amaze me how many citizens can vote for a candidate who doesn't represent their views merely because he's not as bad as the other guy, and then complain about the results. This phenomenon reminds me of a joke that circulated after the 1964 presidential election. That campaign was particularly vicious and decisive, especially the debate over the increasing American involvement in a far-off country called Vietnam and the fight against the "Communist Menace." While President Lyndon Johnson pledged, "We are not going to send American boys nine or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves," Sen. Barry Goldwater countered by saying he'd make "a damned swamp out of North Vietnam" if they didn't quit their aggression.
The joke goes like this: "You know, they told me that if I voted for Goldwater, there would be riots in our big cities and a massive war in Vietnam. Well, I voted for Goldwater, and, by golly, they were right."
However you want to justify or rationalize it, when you vote for the "lesser of two evils" you're not just betraying your principles but also abandoning all hope of ever having a government that respects and defends liberty and freedom.

    When you vote for a candidate who doesn't represent your views in order to stop another candidate who doesn't represent your views, you end up with a government that not only doesn't represent you views, but is run by people who have no incentive or motivation to even consider what you might think.

    If you maintain you're choosing to support one evil in order to avoid a greater evil, you're basically admitting there is no evil you would not support in the interest of a "greater" good.
Consider any other aspect of your life. If there were only two plumbers, electricians or car repair shops in your city, and both overcharged you, provided shoddy service, used substandard parts, and didn't guarantee their work, would you still hire the one that was least bad? Or would you find a serviceman in a nearby town to hire, even if you had to wait several days for service? Some of you probably would do what I've done and learn to do the work yourselves.

    In either case, you reject the idea of choosing from the "lesser of two evils" and find or make your own, third choice. Why then do we tolerate lousy performance, broken promises, and shoddy service from the two parties whose only reason for existence is to expand the power of government and reduce the rights of individuals? As Pat Buchanan observed, “The Democrats and Republicans are two wings on the same bird of prey.”

    The men who framed the Constitution did so with a profound understanding that government was "a necessary evil." They knew that just by the very act of drafting a document to establish a federal government they were actually choosing the "lesser of two evils." Therefore, they took great care in what they wrote and the government they established, setting it on the firm foundation of natural and unalienable individual rights, while granting it only limited, specific and enumerated powers. The writing of the document was a compromise and the document itself was full of compromises. Nevertheless, the framers believed that the "blessings of self-government" could be secured for posterity through this "lesser evil."

    It's easy to claim that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, but that's not the worst outcome. It's not always possible to vote for someone you agree with on every issue. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate - even a Libertarian candidate. It may be pragmatic to vote for a candidate you agree with on most issues, some issues, or at least on key issues.
    The key word here is "for;" you want to vote for a candidate, not against a candidate. This doesn't mean voting for someone who has no principles you agree with, or who is unquestionably willing to compromise any of their principles at the drop of a hat in order to get elected. This is the underlying misconception about voting for the "lesser evil."
    To begin with, it's habit-forming. The winning "less evil" candidate you voted for could turn out to be just as bad, or worse, than the candidate you voted "against." Remember that once in office, a politician has to "get along" in order to "get things done." Your vote contributes to his false sense that he's won a "mandate from the people." He has no reason to pay any attention to any views that don't match his own. So we shrug our shoulders, say "Oh well," and in the next election do it all again in the hope things will turn out differently. After a while, you become desensitized to the constant disappointment of the lesser evil we choose being no better than the greater evil we feared.
    The most pernicious consequence of voting for the "lesser of two evils" is that it adds credence to the dishonest assertion by establishment party apparatchiks that the Libertarian Party is not "viable." The reality is that if all the people who reluctantly voted for the "lesser of two evils" voted for their principles instead, not only would several third parties be viable, the cumulative effect would build like a tsunami that would eventually sweep away the calcified political establishment.
In summary, here are The Top Ten Reasons Not to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils:

1. Change doesn't come from the top, nor does it happen right away. Change comes from the bottom, from the grassroots, from the masses of people expressing their voice through their vote, over time.
2. The lesser of two evils usually isn't.
3. It won't change the mind or actions of the "lesser evil" candidate.
4. It's interpreted by the candidate you select as an endorsement of all their views.
5. It helps winning a candidate falsely claim a "mandate from the people."
6. It encourages the practice of the "politics of fear" rather than the politics of freedom.
7. It reinforces the false claim that third party (Libertarian) candidates are not "viable."
8. They don't deserve it.
9. It is in your self-interest and best for your own self-defense to vote for principle, regardless of the possible outcome; in the end, it is the only thing that matters.
10. You'll sleep better.

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."- Thomas Sowell
-30-
R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and co-founder and editor of of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now lives and works in Texas.



LEE WRIGHTS FOR PRESIDENThttp://www.wrights2012.comContact:Brian Irving, Press Secretary919.538.4548855-4-LEEWRIGHTS

An Open Letter to John Boehner | THE PLAIN TRUTH by Judge Napolitano 7/13/11

 

kleptocracy USA Visualization of United States debt

You have to look at this, it graphically represents the true scope of how deep the problem is. 

 

What 14.8 Trillion looks like piled up in front of you

We're Back, with Persuasion Power Point #311

Persuasion Power Point #311 by Michael Cloud

Will This Pynchon Insight Make You a More Persuasive Libertarian?

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." -- Thomas Pynchon, 1973.

    "If you can get people asking the right questions, you don't have to worry about the answers." -- Michael Cloud, 1994.

Are some questions really this powerful and important? Are they really crucial and fundamental??

Answer: Yes.

• Questions initiate and direct thinking.
  
• They focus and drive and sustain it (thought process).
  
• Questions frame and limit the answers we consider and arrive at.
• Some questions control the kinds of answers that are even possible.

    Apply Pynchon's Insight to politics:

     'If Big Government believers can get Americans asking the wrong political questions, they don't have to worry about their answers.'

How about these wrong Big Government questions they want us asking?

• "If we cut federal spending by 10%, how will we pay for these desperately needed programs, workers, or benefits that the 10% currently funds?"
• "If we cut federal spending by 15%, what will happen to the hundreds of thousands of Americans depending on that funding?"
• "If we end or cut federal bailouts of financially struggling states, how will they provide the roads and bridges and hospitals and firefighters and police they desperately need?" * "If we repeal ObamaCare, how will we care for the 30 million Americans who will lose their health care coverage?"

Please note that these Big Government questions rig the discussion -- and drive us toward Big Government answers. Now apply Cloud's Corollary to politics:

"If libertarians can get Americans asking the right political questions, we don't have to worry about the answers."

How about these small-government, libertarian questions we want others asking?

• "Would you rather have the federal government spending $3.7 trillion, with huge deficits and high taxes like we have now -- or federal spending 10% lower, with lower deficits and lower taxes?
• "Which would you prefer: the federal government giving bailouts to multi-billion dollar Wall Street corporations, multi-billion dollar state governments, and foreign governments -- or eliminating all bailouts and using every dollar saved to cut federal deficits and taxes?"
• "Which would you choose: to totally and immediately repeal Obamacare -- with all of its costs and alleged benefits, all of its rules, regulations, mandates, spending and alleged improvements -- or keep Obamacare?"
• "Which would be better for more Americans: today's $3.7 trillion Big Government -- with its high spending, high deficit, and high taxes -- or a federal government 10% or 20% smaller -- with lower spending, a lower deficit, and lower taxes?"

    Are you asking other people the right questions?

    Which small-government, libertarian questions are you planting in the hearts and minds of others?

    Which government-shrinking, liberty-expanding answers will grow and bloom because of the questions you ask today? * * * * * * * *

Michael Cloud is author of the acclaimed book Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion, available exclusively from the Advocates.

In 2000, Michael was honored with the Thomas Paine Award as the Most Persuasive Libertarian Communicator in America.

taken from the : The Liberator Online, Volume 16, No. 11, July 12, 2011

Wrights on ‘Live and Let Live’ radio show

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wrights on ‘Live and Let Live’ radio show

BURNET, Texas (March 26) – Potential Libertarian presidential candidate R. Lee Wrights will be the guest on the “Live and Let Live” radio show hosted by Texas Libertarian Gary Johnson Sunday, March 27 from 8-9 p.m. CST.

The program airs over Austin station 90.1 and online on the Rule of Law Radio Network (http://www.ruleoflawradio.com). The call in number for this live program is (512) 646-1984.

Wrights, a past vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee, is considering seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination. He believes the Libertarian message in 2012 be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end, Wrights has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will go toward ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states.

Wrights, 52, is a longtime Libertarian writer and activists. He is co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All.  Born in Winston Salem, N.C., he now lives in Texas.

-30-


WRIGHTS 2012 EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
http://www.wrights2012.com

Contact:
Brian Irving, press secretary
919.538.4548

Bombs fall on the evil and the innocent

Posted in Carolinus, Wrights 2012 by R Lee Wrights on March 22nd, 2011

by R. Lee Wrights 

“War is violence at large scale, conducted by imperfect people using imperfect weapons on the basis of limited information. There’s nothing humanitarian about that. Innocents and non-combatants will be killed.”

- Thomas L. Knapp

When you drop a bomb, you cannot be sure who will die when it hits, and once you let it go you cannot bring it back. It doesn’t matter if you claim the person you’re dropping the bomb on is evil, or whether you maintain that your cause is noble and humanitarian. Bombs don’t discriminate between the innocent and the evil.

In a war, any war, innocent people die. Politicians and military leaders may use an innocuous-sounding euphemism like “collateral damage,” to mask the death of non-combatants. But let’s call it what it is - murder. Make no mistake, whether your name is Gadhafi or Obama, if you unleash your bombs knowing full-well that innocent people are going to die as a result, you are committing murder. And to make matters worse, you order others to do your crime for you.

Think about it. If someone blew up your entire family, would it really matter if a well-intentioned busybody rather than an oppressive tyrant delivered the bomb? As Gandhi so eloquently said, “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?”

Those who have been clambering for military action against Libya shout, “Gadhafi is killing innocent Libyans.” I hope they are satisfied that we can now say, “So is President Obama.” Only the president is doing it in the name of all Americans. Well, not this American. This American says to President Obama loudly and clearly: not in my name. Keep your false justifications, your pious pronouncements. I reject the lie that is your noble, humanitarian cause. I do not consent to killing innocents.

One of the prospects that encourages me whenever I run into problems, or get frustrated and aggravated as I consider the idea of seeking the Libertarian nomination for president, is that if I were in office I would be able to stop insane, immoral, illegal and reprehensible actions such as this. If I could do only this one thing, my life would be worthwhile.

This is not about whether Gadhafi is evil or Obama has good intentions. This is about how wrong it is to bomb a sovereign nation that has done you no harm. This is about how it is wrong to sentence innocent civilians to death because of the actions of their government’s leader. No war of aggression is justifiable because it involves murdering innocent people.

I have come to realize that any excuse to go to war is as good as another … for the warmongers. They claim we must wage war to preserve peace in a humanitarian effort to save the world. What utter and complete nonsense! There is nothing humanitarian about killing people en masse, for any reason, save that of self-defense. It is blasphemy to kill innocent people and have innocent people do your killing for you, all the while proclaiming to the world you are doing it in the blessed name of Peace.

It is time for all Americans to stop making excuses for war, or justifying it with supposed good intentions. War is much easier to stop before it starts than after it has already begun. Is it not preferable to have a country filled with prosperous patriots, than to fill our cemeteries with dead heroes? Please join me in calling for real change in American - an end to all war, and bringing the troops home.

“There is only one way in the world to prevent war and that is for every nation to tend to its own business. Trace any war and you will find some nation was trying to tell some other nation how to run their business. All these nations are interfering with some other nation’s personal affairs but with an eye to business. Why don’t we let the rest of the world act like it wants to.”

- Will Rogers

 

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in Texas. He is currently pondering a run for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

Op Ed: Defending the Constitution means not enforcing unconstitutional laws

by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas (March 6) – Most decisions in life are matters of individual choice. When faced with a decision you may ask a trusted friend or beloved family member for their advice or guidance, but most people have no need or desire to have someone else make the decision for them. They certainly don't want someone from the government to make the decision for them. In fact, I agree completely with Thomas Sowell who wrote, "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

Yet everyday pandering politicians and Big Brother bureaucrats conjure up new ways to insert their collective noses into every individual, personal decision Americans make. Government rules and regulations dictate what color you can paint your house, what substances you can ingest into your body and how you run your business or how much you get paid for your work. Policymakers forget their pledge of “public service” as soon as they are elected and become bureaucratic busybodies determine to insure we live sober and moral lives… each and every one of us.

Government intrudes into even the most intimate and personal decisions a person can make - who they can love and who they must hate. Government tells us who we must hate when it sends our young men and women to war. Government even assumes they have the right to decide for us who we can love by making criminal certain types of sexual relations and tell us who we can marry by mandating that we purchase a permission slip.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals and possibly, depending on your personal belief system, God almighty. Government has no place in the mix. What would you say if someone told you that your husband or wife was ill-suited for you and therefore your marriage was illegal? You would probably tell them, "It ain't none of your damned business who I marry and I will thank you to keep your big fat nose out of my affairs." You would also be one step closer to understanding the true foundation of libertarianism … the absolute superiority of individual rights.

The very idea of a marriage license was concocted specifically for the purpose of barring people of color from marrying white people. These laws were eventually recognized as clearly unconstitutional and unenforceable and are no longer on the books. Yet today we hear arguments very similar to those used to justify these Jim Crow laws employed to justify banning same-sex marriages.

What is even more bizarre is that President Obama, whose parents would have been labeled criminals in an earlier time and place in America, takes the misguided view that he must enforce what he himself says is a clearly unconstitutional law, the inappropriately named Defense of Marriage Act.

The issue of gay marriage is not about marriage at all. It is a civil rights issue. It is an issue of the rights of the individual being considered paramount in all legal matters. Marriage is an individual choice to be someone’s mate. It is another area of personal human endeavor that is none of the government's business.

Let me be clear: in the Lee Wrights Administration no unconstitutional law will be enforced. Should I be elected, the oath I will take as president, nearly the same oath I swore to when I enlisted in the United States Air Force, will bind me to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ..." I intend to live up to that oath. As president, I will not enforce any unconstitutional law, nor will I allow anyone in my administration to enforce unconstitutional laws.

The goal of the Wrights Administration will be to stop all war not only on other nations but also on the rights of individuals to make their own decisions. In order to live in peace, we must allow others to be at peace. We must remain vigilant in our insistence that the rights of each individual should be safeguarded, rather than disregarded, by government bureaucrats.

-30-

R. Lee Wrights  is a longtime libertarian writer, political activist, a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party, and a past vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee. He is considering seeking the presidential nomination because he is determined that the Libertarian message in 2012 be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. Wrights has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will go toward ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights, 52, is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All.  He was born in Winston Salem, N.C. and now lives in Texas.

Contact:
Brian Irving
Press Secretary
WRIGHTS 2012 EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
http://www.wrights2012.com
919.538.4548

Conversations On Liberty, Episode #20 David Blau

David was good enough to sit and chat with us on his work , where he he hopes to see the LP go in the Future.

 

ConversationsOnLibtery#21

The state of the union is a state of war

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Op Ed
by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas (Jan. 27) -- What was glaringly absent from President Obama's state of the union address Tuesday night, as well as from the response from both the Republicans and the Tea Party movement, is an admission that the real state of the union is a state of war.

The president only mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan towards the end of his hour-long speech, and uttered the familiar shibboleth of "support the troops" as an applause line to gain the longest sustained ovation of the evening. Neither Rep. Paul Ryan, speaking for the Republicans, or Rep. Michelle Bachman, speaking for the Tea Party movement, mentioned these wars in their remarks at all.

Most of the president's speech was a classic example of elected officials speaking out of both sides of their mouth. While on the one hand calling for a freeze in federal non-security, discretionary spending, the president also called for increased federal spending for a litany of non-security, discretionary items ranging from roads to high speed Internet. Except he doesn't call it spending money, he calls it investment.

Incredibly, President Obama actually made light of the war on civil liberties being perpetrated by the Transportation Security Agency. He said that an "investment" in high-speed rail could soon make train travel faster than flying, and "without the pat down." What was particularly disturbing about this quip was that it received laughs and applause from both Democrats and Republicans in the chamber.

Even though he acknowledged that ballooning federal spending and the skyrocketing national debt were unsustainable, President Obama warned against making "mindless cuts." He admitted that his proposed spending freeze would only affect 12 percent of the budget. Then he said that in order to really tackle the deficit he would have to cut excessive spending "wherever we find it," and even mentioned the big ticket items in the federal budget: Social Security, Medicare and Defense. But then he backed away from offering any meaningful action, preferring to talk about reducing health care costs, eliminating tax breaks and closing tax loopholes, and making government more affordable, more competent and more efficient.

President Obama said that the war in Iraq was "coming to and end," even though a few months ago he said that the war was over. He also said, "we will begin" to bring troops home from Afghanistan in July, even though he has actually sent more troops there since taking office. That reminded me of a used care salesman who raises the price of a car before putting it on sale.

Clearly, neither the president, the Republicans or the so-called Tea Party Republicans have the courage to handle the truth and propose the one action that is absolutely essential if we are to avert an economic catastrophe. We must stop the spending on the 60 to 75 percent of the federal budget that cost the most - defense and entitlements.

We can't avoid economic disaster by slowing spending, lowering spending, cutting spending, or freezing spending. Nor can we nickel-and-dime our way out of the crisis. We must stop spending on items that cost the most. And, we should begin to stop the spending by stopping all wars and bringing the troops home.

-30-

 

R. Lee Wrights, a libertarian writer, activist and lifetime member of the Libertarian Party who lives in Texas. Wrights is considering seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 should be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. He has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty for All.

https://www.typepad.com/secure/services/signin?to=%2Fsite%2Fblogs%2F6a00e554820eb18833010535e29398970b%2Fdesign