Stanley Responds to Complaints
From TheStanleyScoopemail@example.com Thu Aug 15 09:56:40 2002
THE STANLEY SCOOP - Keeping Colorado Informed
The official newswire of the
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 15, 2002
Stanley for U.S. Senate
Rick Stanley, U.S. Senate Candidate, Libertarian Party Nominee, Activist/Organizer of the National Bill of Rights Rallies, Activist/Organizer of the Million Gun March Petition, and Activist/Organizer of the Patriot Files gave the following media release:
Subject: Stanley Answers LPCO Board Vote on Stanley Removal
"The Libertarian Party has some long time activists, that I would compare to minnows, who want to be big fish, in the little Libertarian Party Pond. They didn't get their way at the convention in May, so have decided to go after Stanley, by using the Board of Directors. My blunt statements seem to offend, their delicate sensibilities. They are attempting to smear my reputation by using Stanley Scoop e-mails, which my campaign uses as a discussion forum, for very tough issues. When I called Allard a traitor to the country, and suggested he be hung, if he was found guilty, they cried murderer. Now they say, I have forwarded an e-mail advocating murder, which they say, violates the Libertarian Statement of Principles. I signed an oath declaring I would _ NOT INITIATE _ violence. In spite of all the spin doctoring, of all these charges, I have not initiated any violence. Initiation means to begin, start, etc. In this e-mail, a man, a very upset man, I might add, is extremely upset with the actions of government, and while he made many statements, about many issues I said, "thank you very much for your comments." No initiation of violence there. I then said, "I will forward, and when the day comes, and it will, America will be prepared for the traitor's day, in the people's court. Liberty in our lifetime!" No initiation of violence there. Perhaps my mighty pen, stabbed someone to death, while writing the line. No, I used a computer keyboard. Perhaps, in my zeal to type the line, I hit the keys so hard, they flew off, and killed someone. No, there was nobody there, at the time. Perhaps he means that I murdered someone with the part about, "America will be prepared for the traitor's day, in the people's court." Let's see, a thank you for the comments, forwarding to the Scoop, America preparing to try traitors in the people's court, somehow equals murder and Stanley's violation of a principle. The initiation of violence principle, no less. Didn't Bernston, Joe Johnson, Ari Armstrong, Judd Ptak, Scott Graves and James Vance all try this trick of doctoring, cut and paste, just like the media, they have said, many times does, didn't they try this ploy on the Million Gun March Petition, before the convention, to smear my reputation? Why? I didn't endorse anything; I forwarded the e-mail to my Stanley Scoop, for discussion. No one chose to defend the position, or pick it apart. Of the thousands of people who eventually get my e-mails forwarded to them, not one person complained, or agreed. You see, the Stanley Scoop is my property, people ask to be on it. Ari Armstrong's reference to someone asking to be taken off, was from my Media List, a separate group, and just the fact that they are all media, means that I don't have to ask their permission. This Libertarian group is saying that I am violating property rights, by sending media releases to the media, and some of our representatives in government. The fact that they are both in a position to receive information, from the public, refutes their very lame argument.
This Libertarian group said, "Stanley sent an anti-Semitic e-mail because I forwarded another e-mail, to my Stanley Scoop for discussion. Since when did it become "politically incorrect," to discuss tough issues in this party? What Libertarian hasn't forwarded an e-mail for discussion?
In addition, I have been lambasted because I supposedly bombarded the Candidates e-mail list with Stanley Scoop e-mail. I did forward a very few, in a week's time, heard a few complaints, and said at the time "I won't stay where I am not wanted," so I stopped sending e-mails to that group list, so as not to offend the e-mail police of that group, and I asked to be removed. This was a Candidates list, that I was never asked about; I was just put on it. I read many long winded rants and exchanges, on this Candidates list, from others, and I never complained. James Vance started the complaints, and I volunteered off the list, within 24 hours of the first complaint, not wanting to upset the e-mail police.
Regarding the flap about flag burning: there are many Libertarian members that feel "destruction" of our flag is ok. I think it is quite violent, it initiates force, against the symbol of America, and I wrote the National Committee to Preserve the U.S. Flag, that IF the American people voted to do an amendment to the US constitution, preventing the _DESTRUCTION_ of the US flag, I would vote in the US Senate, to support that amendment only. That doesn't mean that I support legislation, to prevent the flag being flown upside down, as an example. The international signal of distress is a flag being flown upside down. My own campaign, does this as a symbol that this country is in distress, from its own government no less, and many people across the country use this symbol as a means of bringing attention to our freedoms, needing to be restored in this country. I believe as other do, that _DESTRUCTION_ of our country's flag is a slap in the face of all Americans, but especially veterans who have served this country, past, present and future. I am a veteran, and have been endorsed by the Veterans Voting Block. I notice that may Libertarians, like many in government who are threatening the US Constitution, have not served in the armed services, and do not support defending our flag from destruction by individuals who delight in burning US flags, to support whatever cause they may have. This flies in the face of veterans who do not appreciate the glee of some Libertarians, when they see a US flag being burned.
Every Libertarian I know, disagrees with something in the national platform. The platform is changed at every national convention. Do we blindly support the changes, by a group of people we do not even know? This is in direct contrast to each Libertarians wish, to have individual freedom. Should the Colorado Libertarian Party Board accept this petition, and condemn Stanley to be removed as the US Senate Nominee for the Libertarian Party of Colorado, they will be condemned by a majority of the party, the candidates for office, and public who have been taking a hard look at the Libertarian Party, because of candidates like Stanley. To say that this action will create a rift in this party, in this state, and across the country, would be an understatement, and the ramifications of destroying the campaign that is best known in Colorado, to satisfy the personal vendetta of a few dozen party purists, will destroy the future of the Colorado Libertarian Party, by setting a precedent for candidates campaigns, in the future, that no one will want to endure.
The viciousness of "these very much spun" allegations, only underscores the validity of what Stanley has been telling the party for the last 15 months. There is something seriously wrong in this party, when the few, try to silence any dissent. Libertarian values in action. Let's get rid of the 98% Stanley libertarian. Not pure enough. Who is next? Even worse, if this action hasn't already damaged this party beyond repair, what is going to repair the damage when other candidates resign in protest, and a major part of the party leaves in disgust?
Is the Stanley witch hunt worth it? Will it destroy the Colorado Libertarians gains of the last two years to satisfy the egos, who want control, at any cost? Ask yourselves, who and why, are they advocating this action? Is it to preserve party purity, (which is self destructive in itself for any future at all for this party), or to massage egos bent on vengeance, for perceived e-mail slights?
With this action, we fail our primary mission to elect candidates, and become pawns of the two major parties. Was this the objective, with 2 ¸ months left before Election Day? Does the Libertarian Party remain the Losertarians? I wanted to change that. In addition, the timing of this action against Stanley is suspect. The immigration and flag burn flap is very old, at least 6 months old. Each of these issues has been on my website, and attacked by Ari Armstrong before. Bringing these issues up now, and attaching them to the other lame e-mail issues, is extremely suspect. Looks like retribution for Stanley's call for the LPCO money, to be given to some worthy candidates, has touched a nerve. The Board has decided, rather than help the campaigns, stay in the offices I provide, to move, with all of the corresponding expenses. Again, foolish of the board, and shows obstinacy to not help the campaigns, and show up Stanley. A tit for tat aspect, must also be looked at. Stanley has called for Bernston to resign, as have many others, and two affiliates. The Board had made up its mind in advance of the discussion at the August 13th, Board meeting, which is why Michael MacKenzie was so incensed, and resigned over the Board's conduct, and past ineffectiveness.
It looks like this. Slam Stanley. Slam the campaigns. Show board solidarity. Create a rift in the party with these actions. Throw away 2 years of very real gains with these actions, and give a nice slap in the face, to the more than half of the party that nominated Stanley at the convention. All of this to maintain the god ol boy's club of Losertarians.
One last thing, for everyone to ponder: Ralph Schnelvar and his little stunt with the two boobs and Colleen Brooks as his spokesman, was a thousand times more embarrassing to the Libertarian Party, than any of this Ari Armstrong spin report, that is the basis of this removal action. You folks are your own worst enemy.
Ari Armstrong Replies
August 26, 2002
Stanley argues his "official newswire" is a "discussion forum." But Stanley thanked the author of an e-mail advocating murder and said the day would come when the events described in the e-mail came about. (See http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/08/rsvote.html.)
Stanley sates, "I have not initiated any violence." So what? Supporting libertarian principles consists of more than merely not initiating violence. After all, many socialists and fascists can claim they have never initiated violence. Should the LP run socialists and fascists as candidates, too?
Stanley asks, "Didn't Bernston, Joe Johnson, Ari Armstrong, Judd Ptak, Scott Graves and James Vance all try this trick of doctoring, cut and paste, just like the media, they have said, many times does, didn't they try this ploy on the Million Gun March Petition, before the convention, to smear my reputation?" No. Everyone who attended the convention will recall that James Vance and Rick Stanley endorsed each other at the convention. I am not aware of any comments Berntson, Ptak, or Graves made about the Million Gun March Petition. I criticized that petition at http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/05/stanley.html. (Stanley has not answered my criticisms.)
Anyone who understands libertarian theory will recognize Stanley's argument concerning the flag is absurd. Stanley's claim that the complaint against him is somehow "retribution" is completely without merit, as are his ad hominem attacks.