*** This post does not necessarily reflect the opinions of this blog or its administrator. It is a good post and we strive to present all points of view here. I am a Constitutional Conservative with a decidedly Libertarian bent.

By: Gerald Loeffers

Hi all! Yes, this article followed the last one really fast. Well, I got inspired by the observation and comments from others to take a good long and honest look at the Libertarian Party. I will look at their policies, politics, beliefs and views of the Constitution and I will also look at the actual mechanics of the Constitution. I will examine the reasons for its chained down position and why I feel the Libertarians have got it wrong. I believe they are playing into the hands of the radical liberal left.

CHAIN DOWNED REASONING

When the Founders decided to dump the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, they did so because its political spectrum was too close to implementing ANARCHY. It showed they needed a more center line approach towards the PEOPLES’ LAW, but not so close to it to suffer a democracy which was doomed to fail and eat itself. One of the many things the Founders did when writing and designing the Constitution was to read history, philosophy and study other cultures and the thoughts of government from men of ages past. Men like Cicero, who wrote about both the natural laws of man and the idea of a mixed Constitution — taking the best of each of the political philosophies and putting them together in one short easy to understand document.

The opening of the Constitution starts with LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Let’s look at the three political party’s views of that opening to see the errors of the Libertarians.

PARTY TIME

Concerning political parties, the two big and the one small party all revolve around one part of the Constitution.

DEMOCRATS (LIBERALS): They look at the Constitution and only see and use the pursuit of happiness. They see it as an umbrella to cover Americans in free stuff, healthcare and cellphones. They falsely claim that free government stuff is their right and they are in total denial concerning the cost of this free stuff and the total national debt that’s ensued. The fraud alone is up to 60%! They know outright that the welfare state is the new slavery.

CONSERVATIVES (REPUBLICANS): They see the meaning of the Constitution (for some of them depending if they are a RINO or not) as life and the protection of it, which means defending the people against crime, invasion, gangland murder, terrorism and yes, even abortion. That also means supporting and promoting the Second Amendment, because that’s connected to life protection as well.

LIBERTARIANS: This party is a breed apart from everyone else because it’s all three rolled into one. It’s a political origination, a political party and a political philosophy. With at least one rock star as its claim to fame – RON PAUL. But Paul couldn’t win a primary to save his life. Now, Libertarians’ view of the Constitution is focused on the word liberty and liberty alone with no responsibility or hardly any law. Some Libertarians have been known to sabotage other people’s campaigns by labeling them to be conspiracy theorists and some can be down right racist against Jews. In most cases, a lot of them go wacky ballistic on you if you disagree with them on anything.

SMALLER GOVERNMENT DOESN’T MEAN LEGAL WEED

One of the many disagreements with Libertarians that I have is over their policy of legalized, life destroying recreational drugs like pot or making hookers legal. Now, they say they are all for a smaller government and that these two vices are victimless crimes (no such thing) that could be legalized and then the government could… 1. tax it like cigarettes and 2. create a new agency to regulate it. What could go wrong?

These libertarians have just contradicted themselves all in one sentence. So, what they are say now is that it’s okay to grow government as long as they could get their dope from a 7-11. Legalizing weed would cause the following problems: more and more pot heads wouldn’t look for work, production in general would drop lower, there would be more out of wedlock children, there would be an increase in unemployment and food stamp requests and more dependency on government, more regulation and it would play into the hands of the liberals. You have just set up your own trap.

LIBERTY WITHOUT RESTRAINT IS ANARCHY

My second disagreement with the Libertarians is that they claim people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don’t harm others, but a person smoking weed and downing beer at a gun range with his AK-47 is not my idea of a safe and free person. That’s asking for trouble. Driving while stoned sounds nice in a Libertarian fantasy. The reality is it harms others and is a crime with a victim. Let’s look at the cost of the family in a Libertarian fantasy… mom and dad both smoke weed and can get it for free on their Obamacare plan as medicine. Neither one of them work because they are both stoned all day long and the kids grow up eating crap, playing video games too much and don’t go to school. They wind up in prison on and off for the rest of there lives.

IT’S A TRAP!

Does anyone know why you mostly don’t hear too many liberals complain about how wacky Libertarians sound to them or how racist they are or how homophobic they think they are? Hmmm… Well, I will tell you why. Most of your extreme Libertarians are playing right into the hands of the radical liberal socialist left and they are just waiting for them to jump in and swim with the liberal sharks. Think about it. Making pot legal plays right into the hands of big government liberals who want more sources of people control, taxes and more regulations by creating another government agency or maybe expanding the ATF and renaming it ATFD (with the word dope at the end of that acronym).

Now, in closing to all you Libertarians out there… I don’t hate you. In fact, some are alright like JOHN STOSSEL. I love his show and he does watch out for us on many different levels. I am sure he and I would disagree on many things, but he’s a good guy. Even GLENN BECK is Libertarian on some things, but not on others. That’s just fine. I am a BECK fan anyway. This article goes out to the big L extreme libertarians who fall under their own spell and are not willing to accept any disagreements or opposing points of view when they come up. I mean, come on! Isn’t that what liberals do? You have united your people, but this last election you were more divisive then Obama and you should have backed Romney. He was the better choice on most levels and could have brought a crushing defeat to Obama, no matter your disagreements with Romney. Hell, I disagreed with Romney on a few things, but he also weakened during the last half of his campaign. That was a major factor in his loss. Obama was the better campaigner.