Posted by: reddiva | January 17, 2010

The Proof IS in the Pudding

On January 11, I posted an article about why the Libertarian Party scares me for America.  In that article, I provided information from their own party platform.  For many people, that may not have been enough even with my comments added.

Today, I was sent the following information in the words of the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky, Ken Moellman.  Mr. Moellman posted this on the LPKY forum calling it a “clarification.”  He was right.  It certainly clarified a lot of things for me.  I was right all along, and Mr. Moellman gave me the proof.

My comments will be added to the section for which they apply highlighted by using a different color and separated by brackets.

I wanted to take a moment to clarify the latest press release, since you can’t write a novel in a press release.

Let’s start out again by reiterating that Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. (emphasis his)

[Do you wonder why?  How about this for the reason:  In May, 2009 Dr. Rand Paul stated “I know that third party candidates can’t win in KY. Although I’m a Libertarian at heart, I’ve decided to run as a Republican. Once I win I’ll be able to promote my father’s principles and work towards reforming the Republican party.”]

Libertarians, as you all should already know, agree with Democrats and Republicans on certain issues, though not always for the same reasons.

We have classically agreed with Republicans on economic freedom. In the 1980’s, Reagan preached a message of economic liberty that rang true for many of our members: Reducing taxes, eliminating barriers to entry, etc. The Republicans of the early 90’s advocated returning power from the federal government to the states, and that also attracted Libertarians. This is our influence from Goldwater.

We have classically agreed with Democrats when it came to social freedom: Live and let live, people have a right to make their own lifestyle decisions as long as they don’t force them upon others. This is our influence from the hippie movement.

[Here they go again.  No religious consideration allowed.  The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:21-26)  By supporting state amendments to gay marriage, it is forcing this lifestyle on me for acceptance, and according to my faith, I CANNOT accept it.  Child pornography and sexual abuse are sinfully wrong as well as being socially wrong, and this Libertarian statement that someone else’s lifestyle decision to participate in this kind of behavior is okay as long as they don’t get caught because then it forces our laws to deal with the offenders simply does not hold water – hippie movement or not!  Abortion is murder regardless of whether you view it as a “chosen lifestyle” or not.  It ends a life – a human life – and has sometimes disasterous effects on a woman’s body.  By using our laws to allow abortions, I am being forced to accept the lifestyle that I abhor.  How can that be right in their eyes?]

The confusion is due to both the Republicans and Democrats having strayed from the points where we once classically agreed with them. Republicans voted for the Bank Bailout and ran massive deficits from 2000 through 2006. Democrats now want to force people into certain lifestyle choices, such national healthcare.

[It’s okay to not force people into the lifestyle choice of a national healthcare program, but not okay for them to force legalized murder in the form of a lifestyle choice?  Where is the logic in that line of thinking?]

And make no mistake, our non-agression principle is what drives us to be economic conservatives and socially tolerant (formerly, liberal). So there are places where we haven’t agreed with either party.

[Is this a clue that the Libertarian Party is a liberal organization which does not espouse true conservative values?]

Real fiscal and social conservatives are rare these days, especially in politics. Omnibus bills are not a new development. They existed and were passed all through the GWB administration. Social conservativism lives on, but it’s slightly different than 20 years ago. I can’t quite pin-point the difference. Maybe someone else can tell me.

Just as rare are the true fiscal and social liberals. Today, a social “liberal” as defined by popular vernacular is one who wants to take all of your money redistribute it, and to take your personal healthcare choices and mandate a “minimum”.

So, when a candidate like Rand Paul pops up, who is a fiscal and social conservative, in the way things used to be in the 1980s, his opponents label him a “Libertarian”, for multiple reasons. And Rand Paul even more-so.

(1) Modern Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. That’s led to the rise of the TEA Party movement. Perhaps you’ve heard of that (heh).

[He neglected to mention how many Democrats ALSO participate in the TEA Party movement.  TEA stands for TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.  I should think that is a movement that MANY Americans would agree with.]

(2) His father is Ron Paul is/was a Libertarian. Ron was our 1988 Presidential Candidate. But does this mean that the son MUST believe everything that the father espouses? Of course not. That’s what the media and his opponents are trying to make you believe, though.

[Would Rand Paul’s own words help with this?  He confirms, “I agree with my father on all but minor issues.”  In this quote Dr. Paul says that one of those “minor issues” is earmarks which his father is well-known for supporting.]

(3) The opponents are losing, and they’re losing traction fast. Recent polls show that TEA Party candidates are much more popular than establishment Republican candidates. Rand Paul is a TEA Party candidate.

[Once again, the TEA Party movement is a movement based on the continuing increase in taxes.  They are NOT a political partytherefore they have no candidates of their own.]

Now, I will not fault the man for being a fiscal conservative. As I’m a fiscal conservative myself, I appreciate his stands on fiscal issues. This is where Libertarians and Republicans had traditionally agreed.

But we disagree on social issues. He is a social conservative and advocates the continued use of government to maintain that social conservativism. I’m socially tolerant, living a socially conservative lifestyle by choice. This is where we part company, and what definitively makes Rand Paul a “TEA Party” Republican, not a Libertarian.

I hope this is clear, and this is a thread open to discussion, so please feel free to comment.

For those within the LPKY party structure, that are confused about these statements and the FEC regulations I’ve been warning of, for the past year: I am defending the LPKY, not promoting Rand Paul. I did not ask for this fight, but we must defend our party. We are not Rand Paul, and Rand Paul is not us. It does not serve us well to allow the GOP smear machine to associate the two.

You are correct, Mr. Moellman.  It does NOT serve you well when a candidate for ANY political office says he is Libertarian at heart but running as a Republican because he knows he wouldn’t win as the third party candidate.  You are right to distance yourself from him.  It gives your policies a better chance of being instituted.  You are an intelligent man, Mr. Moellman.  Sometimes, intelligence is a good thing, but at other times it attempts to hide the forest by planting more trees.  Not a good call, Mr. Moellman.

Kentucky voters are intelligent, too, Mr. Moellman.  They will see straight through this subterfuge of your and your party’s statements and Dr. Paul’s beliefs.  They will elect the only truly conservative candidate in the race for US Senator for Kentucky, Mr. Bill Johnson, the REAL conservative – the REAL Republican.

I choose to believe the words of a Kentucky citizen and registered voter who like me supports conservative values and conservative candidates.  Lisa Graas has an excellent post on this topic that I would encourage you to read.

Mr. Moellman has proven the points I made in my earlier article.  I am right to be sceptical and even frightened for my country by their opinions and public platform.



  1. I know many homosexuals who are nicer, better human beings than many of the intolerant preachers and Christians who hate homosexuals. In fact if some of my homosexual friends are going to be burning in Hell, then I would feel terrible sitting in Heaven knowing good people are there.

    Think about it.

    • Being homosexual is not what will send them to hell, Dan. Knowing yet rejecting the TRUTH will. I have had some very good friends who were gay. They knew that I did not approve of their lifestyle and never forced the issue on me. I appreciated that. Unfortunately, I don’t have any of those friends anymore – for various reasons, including an automobile accident in one instance and Aids in two other instances, they are now receiving whatever reward they chose for themselves. That is not my decision – it was theirs.

      I removed the last part of your comment, Dan, because I believe it to be heresy. Like it or not, that is my prerogative.

  2. Great article, the TEA Party supports real conservatives not sort of!

    • Agreed! And it seems there is a REAL DIFFERENCE between Real conservatives and fake ones, doesn’t it?

      Thank you for your comment.

    • Lol. Real Conservatives like Palin? So you support Amnesty, bailouts, Liberalism? I see what this ‘movement’ is all about.

      • Atheist, I removed your blog post. Check out my User Information page to see why.

        Yes. Real Conservatives like Sarah Palin. Real Conservatives DO NOT support amnesty, bailouts or liberalism. You have no clue what this ‘movement’ is all about. And until you learn, your comments will not be allowed on this blog.


    As a nation, we have allowed ourselves to drift too far from our roots, those established when the Pilgrims arrived and when our system was codified by the 19th century Democrats from Jefferson, Madison on to Cleveland, as cited in The Changing Face of Democrats on We’ve allowed the Old World ideas of Rousseau and Marx to infect our politics through the 20th century Democrats, and now we are paying the price for it. Whether we will regain our proven way again remains to be seen. Whether enough of the electorate will choose the New World way or stay the course being laid down by Obama and become just another nation ruled by the few elite over the wishes of the many with individual freedom a thing of the past is yet to be decided. America proved prosperity comes from freedom, not dictatorship.

    • Clay, I removed the links to your website and published your comment in its entirety. Obviously, you and I have differing opinions about the “New World way” – I consider Obama’s way the “New World Order”, and I don’t like it one bit. Other than that, I agree with you completely about the infection of Marxism and Communism into the Democratic Party in America.

      I will read your site for a few days, and if we are in continued agreement, I will, with your permission, post a link for it elsewhere on my blog.

      Thank you for your comment.

  4. The Libertarian Party says it is the right of the people to alter or abolish government. That’s good enough for any libertarian anarchist and makes the platform just as hardcore as it was before. Tea Parties are about the right to alter or abolish government too. So any neocon war mongers who think they put anything over on real libertarians and real Americans who don’t want to destroy America for the good of foreign nations are living a day dream.

  5. “Homosexuality is an abomination to God,” writes the author of this blog.

    Well guess what? Shrimp are an abomination to God too! Along with crab, lobster, mussels, squid, etc. Leviticus 11: 9-12

    9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
    10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
    11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
    12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

    Where is your crusade against seafood restaurants, oh ye hypocritical Pharisees — um, I mean fundamentalists?

    • I will not engage in the argument you are trying to pursue. I wrote that I also believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. In the Christian faith, He came do fulfill the prophecies of the Sacrificial Lamb. Therefore what we refer to as the New Testament is applicable to those who believe this as well. I will refer you to the scripture found in Acts 10:9-16.

      There is also a New Testament scripture relating to homosexuality. But you’ll have to look that up for yourself. Maybe if you read the Bible without knowing exactly where to look you might see things in a way you have never seen them belore. Jesus Christ loved the sinner while hating the sin. It is not the person who practices the sin that I have no acceptance for – it is the sin itself.

      Am I perfect? No, indeed, I am most definitely not perfect. That is the very reason I need Jesus Christ in my life and in my heart.

      And please notice, I did not state that everyone feels the way I do… I wrote only what I believe. If you believe differently, you are entitled to your own beliefs which is why I did not remove your comment but only the link you left. I suggest you read the bold red print in the User Information.


%d bloggers like this: