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!
