When Reagan-Conservatives and Libertarians Collide ~ The “Right” and the “Radical

[Sandra]

Links between Socialists and modern day Libertarians are many ~ and frightening

When Reagan-Conservatives and Libertarians Collide ~ The “Right” and the “Radical

By Christopher Massie Wednesday, October 13, 2010

In order to maintain itself and its country, the Russian government ~
during the duration of WWI and beyond ~ as directed by Lenin and his
Bolshevik ruling party, seized all foods grown as well as the seeds
remaining available for future food productions.

This was an act designed to protect the populace from itself and was the
catalyst for the Russian Famine of 1921 ~ resulting in the deaths of an
estimated 5 million. Ask yourselves, was this action justified on the
part of the government?

Then digest this statement from Ronald Reagan from an interview given in
1975 as he attempts to unravel the complex relationship ~ from that time
~ between Libertarians and Conservatives:

“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to
protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his
equipment and the motorcycle – the same as we do with an automobile. I
disagree completely when government says that because of the number of
head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to
wear a helmet. I happen to think he’s stupid if he rides a motorcycle
without a helmet, but that’s one of our sacred rights – to be
stupid.

“But to show you how these grey areas can creep in, the other day I was saying this to a man who happens to be a neurosurgeon, and who has treated many cases of this particular kind of injury and accident, and he
disagreed with me on this issue. He disagreed with me on the basis of the
individuals who become public charges as a result of permanent damage–he
has pointed to an area where it does go over into not just hurting the
individuals directly involved but now imposes on others also. I only use
this extreme example to show that when we come down to government and
what it should or should not do for the good of the people and for
protecting us from each other, you do come into some grey areas and I
think here there will be disagreements between conservatives and
libertarians.”

Reagan exposed the perfect example of what was then the classic line between the so-called Conservatives and Libertarians of the day ~ circa
1975. Drop that conversation on the table today and you’ll quickly
surmise Conservative from Liberal. Libertarians, however are not as
quickly eye-balled today as with such examples Reagan so poignantly laid
before us some 35 years ago.

Libertarians today, compared to those when the movement was gaining
momentum as a respite to the Liberal party circa 1975 ~ thereby garnering
Reagan’s attention briefly ~ are as crooked as they come. They are
routinely bought and sold across party lines (favoring Clinton one cycle,
hugs and kisses to Bush the next); degrading of the Constitution to suit
their flights of fancy (claiming Americans must advocate isolationism as
if Washington’s farewell speech somehow penned such “hands-off” rhetoric
in invisible ink through an amendment no one can find); and routinely
racist, bigoted morons who believe their millions banked off-shore
somehow preclude them from practicing moral behaviors.

No, today’s Libertarians are not the “Libertarian-Conservatives” Reagan
once praised, they are, indeed, Socialists. They advocate a one-nation,
isolated country, similar to that witnessed under the Lenin and Stalin
regimes. A vision that if realized would run its course to the end result
of an American implosion, the world as we know it resorting to anarchy;
terrorists, bigots, fascists, murderous dictators rising again to rule,
with our enemies that have battled us from the days of the Barbary Wars
taking hold throughout the globe. Today’s Libertarians, by endorsing a
system wherein “The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood”
~ thank you again Reagan for the analogy ~ are sanctioning not only
global restructuring but the very installation of state-by-state
Socialism wherein anarchy would indeed soon follow.

The term Socialism was first used by the Left ~ in all its splintered
glory ~ in the 1920s. Reagan himself told us that the 6-time candidate
for President on the Socialist ticket told the party and its voters that
no one would elect a Socialist, but, as Reagan went on, change the name
to the Liberal Party, continue with the same platforms and the American
people will eat it up. And they did.
Through the 60s, as the Liberal Party gained one black eye after another,
another name came up for debate: Libertarians. ‘We can do as we wish,
vote how we want, love the left, hate the right; change gears as the
winds blow; hell we can even sell ourselves as: socially liberal,
politically conservative’. Gotta’ love that one! Wrap your mind around
that one for a few minutes!

Libertarians: Socially liberal, Politically conservative

That’s exactly how they introduce themselves at rallies. “We are socially liberal, politically
conservative.” Remember Lenin’s position: “Save the workers, Kill
the government.” Libertarians are Socialists. A true Conservative
understands this ~ and this is why Reagan flushed the Libertarian moniker
and adopted his own true persona (we call it today Reagan-Republican).
Capitalism works, limited government is crucial, lower taxes are
mandatory, and a strong, prosperous and free America must be the shining
example for the world.

Libertarians destroy the Constitution to suit their agendas. For example,
read Ron Paul’s “The Revolution”. He uses Washington’s Farewell Address
to lay claim our Founding Father’s demanded isolationism and that to
ignore such a claim Americans may as well just flush the entire
Constitution down the toilet. Washington’s address was 20 years removed
from the Constitution’s signing and 5 years removed from the Barbary
Wars. Read his positions on the issues; another strange and convoluted
attempt to marry the Constitution and his demands for compassion for
Jihadists. The man wants America to return land to the very people who
blew up the towers on 9/11; claiming it’s the fault of the United States
we were attacked. And he’s not the only Libertarian espousing these
views.

Through researching platforms, voting records and public policy
statements of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Ross Perot as well as other
Libertarians on the ballots today, and by reading

Reagan’s interview from 1975, then comparing all the raw data, it is
clear that the Libertarians of today are in no way related to those of 35
years ago.

What’s more ~ as earlier mentioned ~ at rallies recently attended (being
a Tea Party member, witnessing Libertarians at our meetings is quite the
norm), discussions with these folk invariably open with: (some family
member, too are self-described Libertarians) “We’re socially liberal,
politically conservative.”

Being the political activist and scientist I am, Lenin comes instantly to
mind: “Save the workers, Kill the government.” Only problem with
Proletarianization is, it doesn’t work. Libertarians also desecrate the
Constitution time and again as emphasized herein. Reagan found himself
disenfranchised in the 1970s with the Democrats, desiring a new party: ‘I
have not abandoned them, it is they that have left me.’

One recognizes that Reagan held fault with many in the Libertarian party
due to their socialist tendencies towards zero government and likened
himself, rather, a “Libertarian-Conservative”. Today, we call ourselves
Reagan-Republicans. Libertarians engaged in conversation, to include
those researched and others as well, hold faith in the abolishment of
government as it is today; they would go so far as coddle our gravest
enemies. That is not a Conservative’s position; it is Socialists who sign
treaties with their enemies of war (have we forgotten WWI and II?)


In short, the links between Socialists and modern day Libertarians are
many ~ and frightening. Reagan saw it 35 years ago. Why can WE not see it
today?

Perhaps, in closing, it is our vernacular that could do with some
polishing. Looking back to Reagan’s advice, a Liberal in his day would
have actually been more appropriately labeled as a Tory ~ supporting a
sort of monarchy-like government where a “King” dictates from on high;
controlling, subjugating the population and supporting said government
through ruthless, illegal taxation.

While the Conservative more truly fit the Liberal moniker ~ fighting the
establishment towards a goal of smaller rule, less interference in the
lives of the populace, less taxation, a more secure state through
self-governing, etc. Those aspects fit the Libertarian platform quite
well 35 years ago. When Reagan opened up for political introspection all
those years back then, we had a clearer definition: Tories, Liberals and
Libertarians.

But today we have a new set of vernacular: Liberals, Conservatives, and
Libertarians.

And it is these new Libertarians whom require a great deal of exposure.
We now have one whom stands in the town square and preaches to the masses
from atop his soap-box. One who rails against the government, preaching
for absolutely zero tolerance of any governmental bodies ~ be those in
the arenas of taxation, the military, foreign relations, energy ~ even to
the most basic levels as required for national security or the stability
of health and human services. The Libertarians of today advocate
near-anarchy-like conditions between populace and government ~ a
condition precisely as those promoted by the likes of Lenin, and Stalin
his successor.

As the Left has pulled farther left, and the Right farther right, we’ve
all come to realize that Moderate is a misnomer. And it’s time to
understand, too, that Libertarians, lost in a sea of “nearly-theres” and
“could-have-beens” have become dangerously radical towards a goal of
recognition. Their hands are every bit as open as any other Abramoff
sell-out. Their records prove it. It’s time we focus on a candidate
Reagan would have us to.

This ain’t a popularity contest, this is our country we’re fighting for!




http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28738