The Libertarian Party recently nominated former Republican Congressman Bob Barr as their presidential nominee. This nomination represents a compromise of the principles that the Libertarian Party used to stand for. Party members decided that they were going to sell out the principles of their party in exchange for some coverage in the corporate controlled media. Is some coverage in the establishment media worth having a man at the front of the party with an incredibly dubious past pertaining to freedom and liberty? Although it is possible that Barr might have changed his ways and realized his mistakes for not abiding by the Constitution, his record speaks for itself. Barr voted in favor of the Patriot Act, worked for the CIA throughout the 1970s and supported the phony war on drugs for several years. The Patriot Act is one of the most tyrannical pieces of legislation ever passed in the history of the United States. The war on drugs is entirely against the principles of the Libertarian Party. Considering Barr’s record of supporting anti-freedom policies and legislation, he is not a suitable choice to vote for in the general election. If you want to vote for a candidate that believes in liberty and the Constitution, write in Ron Paul.
Barr won the nomination over Mary Ruwart who would have been a fine candidate to promote the Libertarian cause. Ruwart is an author who has supported the cause of individual freedom for many years. She is a long time member of the Libertarian party and had none of the baggage that Barr has. By selecting Barr as the presidential nominee, the Libertarian Party has selected a poor representative.
Below is a blurb from a Bloomberg report talking about how Barr has upset many Libertarians with his dubious past.
Barr has angered Libertarians by backing what they view as abuses of government, including efforts to crack down on drugs and his vote for the Patriot Act, which gave the government expanded powers, such as wiretapping, to fight terrorism. Civil libertarians condemn his co-sponsorship of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages, and his opposition to abortion.
Although Barr’s platform appears reasonable, his history of supporting anti-freedom positions is reason enough not to vote for him. The abortion issue is subject to debate since the New World Order is using abortion to support their depopulation agenda. However, the other positions Barr has held in the past are contrary to the ideals accepted by the majority of Libertarians and other freedom loving Americans. The war on drugs is a total fraud and used as an excuse to have a police state and generate profits for the drug traffickers that work for the CIA and the various criminals within the U.S. government. It also serves as a way to generate massive amounts of profits for the prison industrial complex. Barr was a major supporter of this phony drug war for many years and on top of that worked for the CIA which is involved heavily in the drug trade. Barr’s support of the Patriot Act deserves no further analysis. Members of Congress were not even allowed to read the Patriot Act before they voted on it, so what does that say about Barr’s judgment? He voted in favor of a bill without even reading it.
It is time that people vote for individuals and not parties. This is a perfect example of such a scenario. The Libertarian Party has in the past fielded good candidates like Harry Browne in 2000 and Ron Paul in 1988. This recent choice is a compromise of the party platform in exchange for media coverage that doesn’t mean anything if it means a watered down message. There is no difference between the Republican and Democrat parties already and if the Libertarian Party sends people like Barr to represent them, than pretty soon there will be no difference between any political parties including the big 3rd parties. Voting for the individual and not the party is the best way to go and that’s why writing in Dr. Paul is clearly the best choice. Barr simply can’t be trusted to fully represent the ideals of liberty and freedom even if on the surface it looks as if he is intending to do that. Even though that might not be fair, ask yourself which makes more sense. Should we support someone who has only embraced the liberty message for a couple of years versus someone like Dr. Paul who has been actively involved in this for decades? The answer should be obvious.
Source: Rogue Government