My name is L. Neil Smith, and and I am a writer. I first joined the Libertarian Party during the first full year it existed, 1972. I am also the libertarian movement's foremost advocate of the right to own and carry weapons.
I am writing this because it's important that you understand that the national organization has been infiltrated and taken over by neoconservatives. There are reasons this happened, and they go back a long way, mostly to idiots and shapeshifters who wanted to broaden the appeal of the party by watering down what it stands for.
For more on this, see:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle471-20080608-02.html
It's equally important that you understand that real libertarians are working to take their party back. This will require some time and effort, but it _will_ happen. So withhold your vote for Barr, just as you should for Obama and McCain. Libertarians have had a harsh wake-up call, but they are responding.
Monday, July 07, 2008
L. Neil on Barr
Via email:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Sorry, I already wasn't going to vote for Barr.
Of course, I still have to decide who I *am* going to waste my vote on.
I see a parallel with the NRA. They kicked out all the "black rifle" and "militia" people, the no-compromises-on-liberty people, as extremist and radical. In the Libertarian Party, there were those who condemned the mainly-anti-War on Drugs faction as coattail-riders who weren't interested in regaining our government, only in self-indulgence. Insiders like Barr (AND McCain AND Obama)know enough to tell us what they've learned we want to hear. After they're elected, it's "Do I know you?"
I'll write in Ron Paul. He has SOME name recognition and an unblemished record of observing the Constitution. I'll have no regrets.
Write in "none of the above," or "Ron Paul."
Mr. Smith, not just has the Libertarian Party been hijacked by saber rattlers but so has the republican party. Let me fill you in on what you call "neoconservatives", which they are anything but that. There's nothing "new" or conservative about them. The better term is, fluxcons, fake conservatives.
Back in 1972 the hippy movement took over the democrats and the so called neocon folks had no place to go. The republican party asked them to come on it. That single act destroyed the party. E.G., everyone will say Bush is a liberal. Of course he is he and his people are really democrats who's heros are democrats, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ. The Bush family even likes Clinton and thats why daddy Bush and Slick Willy travel together.
Bob Barr has a background in the old democrats from the south that were the supporting backbone for when the neocon thing got underway.
With the way the fluxcons are taking over parties we will have one mindset, democrat but three party names.
Now lets see the LP toss Bob Barr out for lying to get the nod to run. I believe the party would be better off showing that they are the real deal.
Professional politicians are professional politicians first, and whatever else they are second. Dunno why the LP should be immune.
"Professional politicians are professional politicians first, and whatever else they are second. Dunno why the LP should be immune."
Couldn't agree more.
A vote for the lesser of three evils is no better than a vote for the lesser of two.
You can write in my name or look at the Boston Tea Party's (http://www.bostontea.us/) candidates.
Kent, if I end up writing in your name, I'll send you a copy of the newspaper should they print your name.
samenokami- I'd like that.
thomas knapp, another libertarian, had been following this up through the LP primaries, as well. he can name the two neocon cretins who edged out mary ruwart, and how. it's there in his blog.
i tried to voice this amongst paulites and libertarians on facebook and was met only with hostility for rocking the boat at a time when someone might actually pay attention to them (so they thought). so far, they are reaping what they have sewn.
l. neil does them a service merely calling these political sellouts "shapeshifters." it's fascism, plain and simple. bob barr is their soup nazi. selling out for barr's media coverage is just a symptom of a deeper social malaise in this country.
I'd don't think Barr leans toward fascism as much as his contemporaries, though he is indistinguishable from the Democrat and Republican candidates on the disarmament issue. There seems to be two types of politicians in DC: Statists, and Those Who Compromise With Statists. (Except for that one guy from Texas.) Barr is apparently in the latter class.
I'd like to do a survey where people list the qualities that make one a "neocon"; I'll bet that it's a pretty broad definition. The Libertarian Party also has a lot of "progressives", and to me they seem to hold an identical philosophy; only the details of their plans are different.
The Constitution Party candidate is going to be a prime consideration in my voting choice. The other is simply to protest the system in general by not voting at all.
http://www.renewamerica.us/
I found Alan Keyes' site above a few months ago. I'll admit I've not doen much to promote him, but he thus far has seemed the best match for me. He's a true conservative, but isn't totally wacked out like some of the Paulites and libertarians are. Since third party votes are what they are, and I refuse to vote for socialists, he'll be getting my vote, unless someone can give me a dang good reason not to.
....or is this the time where we all start a movement to write in "John Galt" for any and all seats with poor candidates?
Yeah, darn those people who are all "wacked out" on that scary liberty stuff.
"He's a true conservative.... I refuse to vote for socialists"
I hate to be the one to break it to you, Loren, but "conservative" is just newspeak for "right-wing socialist". If they support the "good of society" over the rights of an individual (any individual), they are promoting socialism.
Drug warriors, "law-and order" types, and so forth are all supporting their own brand of socialism.
To find people who are not socialists, you must look to those totally wacked-out people you were disparaging. Standing up for "liberty for ALL" is a radical, wacked-out position today. I know, because I get attacked for it frequently.
If Keyes does not fit the above, he is not a "conservative, but is instead a "libertarian", wacked-out or not. I haven't looked into him or his positions so I can't say where he fits.
Keyes was very pro-Constitution when he was a candidate years ago. If it's time for a change from sliding into socialism AND time for a black president, Keyes would be the one.
Unfortunately the Constitution is not the "be-all and end-all" of liberty.
I have been checking out Keyes' website and can not support him.
You are right: he is a "conservative" ...unfortunately... and only supports certain types of "liberty" while advocating state terrorism against others who are harming no one but possibly themselves.
This is the same mindset that empowers the state to violate gun rights. As soon as you begin to think it is OK to violate some human rights, it is a small step to believe it is OK to violate others as well.
You are free to live however you see fit as long as you are harming no innocent person. Regardless of what the state or its sympathizers want to believe.
I forget that words have acquired meanings that I don't intend to use.
I believe that the "wackos" are more likely to have more truth than the mainstream media and the sheep who follow them.
A "true conservative" is different from a "right wing socialist" and I intended for there to be a distinction, as I know the difference.
Biggest problem is what Ron Paul found. They ignored him, and focused on the 9/11 truthers, and other people who supported him who made him look crazy. I like the libertarian platform, but they want to sign an executive order tomorrow, and make everything right--no consideration that the only way to suddenly change things now is through violence, and that's not something anyone really wants. The Constitution party I looked at, but found that they scared me. They weren't Constitutionalists so much as theocratic.
A proper party would set an attainable platform, and make it clear that they have greater goals in mind. Most third parties I've seen don't even attempt to engage the masses, but preach to the choir. That's not how you win elections and get to where you can change policy and reform government.
I'd appreciate Kent pointing out the problems he sees in Keyes' platform, I found nothing troubling last time, and my search-fu is unfortunately rather weak.
A socialist is someone who believes the needs of the many (society, or "the children") outweigh the rights of the few... or the one. I have never seen a "conservative" who does not fit the description. I don't care if it is a right boot or a left boot on my neck. I just want to keep the boot away, and will do so violently if I have to.
You say he is pro-Constitution, but I see many areas where he advocates violating it.
Keyes seems to have supported the desires of society over the needs and rights of Terri Schiavo. Where does the Constitution give the federal government authority to meddle in things like this?
He seems to be promoting a theocracy, just as you pointed out about the Constitution Party. Being happy with your beliefs is one thing; basing policy or law on them, against the clear wording of the Constitution, is another.
He is supporting the denial of the right of some people to get equal protection under the law by opposing "gay marriage" (government should have never been given authority to recognize or sanction anyone's marriage in the first place). Where does the Constitution give the federal government authority to regulate love-lives?
He is opposed to science education and is promoting creationism, once again in violation of the First Amendment.
Almost his entire home page is promoting his religious beliefs instead of promoting the Constitution, or (even better) advocating justice and liberty for ALL.
The "slippery slope" doesn't only apply to gun laws. Once you begin to believe that it is OK to pass laws controlling non-aggressive behavior of any kind, it becomes "reasonable" to let the state decide what kind of guns, if any, you need.
With friends like him, the Constitution doesn't need enemies.
The failures of the LP, numerous and pathetic though they are, are not the point here. No political party will be perfect. But I will not support, with my time or with my vote, anyone who is actively working to destroy liberty and replace it with his religion's vision of "heaven on earth"; liberty and justice for his fellow believers (the rest of us can go to... well, somewhere else).
L Neil Smith? As in the star wars books "Chronicles of Lando"?? haha.
I guess I should provide the link where I read that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Neil_Smith
Post a Comment