|Posted by Adam on December 26, 2011 at 5:20 PM||comments (0)|
Ron Paul or Bust
Why Simply Voting for the GOP Nominee is the Wrong Thing to Do
By Adam Motzko
December 26th, 2011
As the Iowa caucuses draw ever nearer, discussions have risen regarding Reagan’s “11th Commandment” and the need for unity and support of the Republican nominee, regardless of who the nominee actually is. As a registered Republican and active Tea Party member, I would refute that commonly held belief to my last breath.
There are two main reasons why these talks have erupted in recent days. The first is the fact that a majority of Gingrich supporters are beginning to realize that Newt isn’t the so called “anti-Romney” as the main stream media would have liked to paint him, but in reality, much worse as a candidate than Mitt Romney himself. Their flawed solution: settle for Romney anyways. The second reason, and probably the most relevant, is Congressman Ron Paul’s recent surge in the polls in early caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire. The political establishment and media pundits alike fear that while a Ron Paul win is ‘impossible’, his ever-building movement will pressure him into running as a legitimate third party candidate. Most of the pundits agree that a third party run would ensure an Obama reelection victory in 2012, with Congressman Paul stealing up to 10% of the Republican vote. However, I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter who would support the Republican, even if Ron Paul didn’t run in a third party role. I could not be more proud to proclaim that I am one of them.
If the media is correct in saying that Romney will be the likely nominee, then the Tea Party, who plays an incredibly instrumental role these days in the GOP, will have to choose which candidate to throw their support behind. Their first choice is to abandon every principle they were founded on in supporting Romney, who supported the corporate transfer of wealth during the bailouts and thinks that, while it may be Constitutional in his state, the government’s role is to force its citizens to purchase a product (the individual mandate). In supporting this type of candidate, the Tea Party loses virtually all credibility and will turn into a useless political movement that is ignored by the Republican party in the near future.
Unfortunately, a majority of Americans have been fooled into thinking that we have to compromise our principle simply because we must not let Obama win reelection. This voting process is recognized as “supporting the lesser of two evils”. But, in doing so, what do we win? If, in the end, the lesser is still evil, how will that advance our cause? If, in the end, supporting someone who still doesn’t understand the fundamental role of government, what do we gain in doing so? This has swayed the American public into voting against someone, instead of in support of someone. Eventually, this endless cycle forms the two-party system, which, in reality, is a one party system: the party of big government. When America reaches that point, we have already lost the Republic.
Joseph Stalin, one of the deadliest rulers of Soviet Russia, famously noted that, “It doesn’t matter who the people voted for, they always voted for us.” As he correctly noted, once the people are brainwashed into thinking that one party’s candidate automatically stands for limited government, and the other party’s candidate always stands for bigger government, the system and the state have won. The establishment has won. Sure, John McCain may have been a ‘less evil’ President than Obama, but in the end, he is still evil.
If Ron Paul were to fail in getting the nomination, I refuse to support the system and vote for evil, just because of the “R” behind a candidate’s name. You either understand the fundamental, constitutional role of government, or you don’t. For those that don’t, don’t waste your time trying to win over the support of liberty-lovers like me, because you’ll be wasting your time.
In the end, Obama wins whether or not Ron Paul chooses to run in a different party. His supporters, like me, will simply and proudly write him in, forcing the GOP nominee to concede on election night. In essence, the GOP is forced to nominate Ron Paul if they want any shot at winning in 2012. But it would be foolish to blame those who fight for liberty for this result, as the rightful fault would lie in the hands of the Republican cheerleaders, who could not unite under the banner of liberty and the Constitution, solely because a candidate refuses to preemptively invade Iran.
I’m voting for Ron Paul in 2012, no matter what. I hope you will to, because the lesser of two evils is still evil, no matter what party follows their name.
|Posted by Adam on March 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM||comments (0)|
Conservatism Lives Update
To site members and fans:
I hope this message finds you in great health and good times. It has been such a great experience using Conservatism Lives as a vehicle to spread the basic, founding principles of free market economics and limited, constitutional government. In just over a year, the Conservatism Lives Facebook page has reached around 1,750 members, largely due to your help! Each day, we post a Liberty Quote and a Liberty Post, so we try not to spam your news feed too much!
I am announcing today that our website (www.conservatismlives.webs.com) will be shutting down on Tuesday, April 5th, due to excessive bandwidth use. I had been hosting the site for free, but I am now being forced to either shut down or upgrade, for a monthly cost.
But I am excited to announce that Conservatism Lives will be merging with Foundations for Liberty in a start up organization called The Young Guns Coalition.
Here is our vision at Young Guns Coalition: We want to become a developer of wise leaders and a driving intellectual powerhouse in the war of ideas and worldviews by showcasing sharp young conservatives who are champions for Higher Law, limited government, and free markets.
We feel that this vision will be most effectively carried out on our new website (www.YoungGunsCoaltion.com).
The Conservatism Lives Facebook Page will still run for a brief period of time, as to allow all the fans time to ‘Like’ and become fans of our YGC Facebook Page (www.tiny.cc/YGCoalition). The name ‘Conservatism Lives’ will be the name of my blog at YGC’s website and can be found here: www.YoungGunsCoalition.com/conservatism-lives/ - so please check it out!
Also, we are looking for potential sponsors to help cover the costs of our activities. If you, or anyone you know, would be interested, you can email me at Adam@YoungGunsCoalition.com . Any other questions can be directed to that email address as well.
Thanks again for all your contributions to making Conservatism Lives a success. It has been a great learning experience for me and I hope you found our content helpful and educational!
In the mean time, please check out the YGC website and Facebook Page (links listed).
Founder, Conservatism Lives
|Posted by Adam on March 11, 2011 at 11:39 AM||comments (1)|
Just in case anyone wonders why Obama and his cronies are so hot to support labor unions particularly government employee unions check out the contributions..
|Posted by Adam on March 2, 2011 at 4:21 PM||comments (0)|
Public Unions Learnings About Our Reality
by Dave Kendall - firstname.lastname@example.org
Today's workers should get down on their knees and thank unions for the grass-roots protections they've provided for us from those early years of this country's beginnings.
That was then, this is now, and today, workers have government protections that ensure safe and fair working conditions. Union membership in this country has slowly eroded to just 11.9 percent of the workforce, 6 percent in the public sector. More than 88 percent of us figured out we no longer need to pay a union between 1 percent and 2 percent of our wages to protect us. It's free.
People who claim ending collective bargaining will destroy the middle class perhaps should do the math. A good chunk of those nonunion workers makes up the middle class of which I belong.
I worked for a major company in the Valley and, during the economic good times, it gave us bountiful benefits to keep workers happy and productive. During the bad times, the raises were meager and benefits remained stagnant.
If a company doesn't sell products, how can it pay for raises and benefits? In bad times, most unions accuse companies and government of lying. Unions call it greed. Companies call it survival.
I chose to be nonunion because I wanted an identity and feel like a productive member of the company. When I sat down for my performance review, I had a name, a face and a voice. My performance was tied directly to my pay. If I did well and the company did well, I was rewarded. Bad workers were culled out and replaced with people who wanted to work and produce.
I didn't need collective bargaining to protect my job or put food on the table. That's how 88.1 percent of us do business.
When the public union sits down to negotiate pay, it isn't tied to individual performance. It's a collective bargaining unit, which is faceless and nameless. Your pay and benefits are based on a conglomerate of both good and bad workers. The good and the incompetent are paid the same.
Toward the end of my career, I became an employee owner and sunk my life savings into the company with no guarantees. Competition from overseas grew stronger, products matured; raw material prices rose and profits became smaller. The company had no choice but to reduce benefits, downsize the workforce, freeze wages and pass on health care increases to its workers.
As an owner, I saw the numbers and I understood why I got less and had to pay in more. I didn't like it but the facts are what they are. Reality is a tough pill to swallow.
With no raise in two years and the economy continuing to falter, I decided to retire at 55, which resulted in a 40% pension reduction for leaving early. I paid $450 a month for health care and, six years later, it has risen to $900 a month.
Wisconsin teachers and other public workers are taking early retirement at 55 to freeze their benefits, uncertain of their futures, much like me. However, they get 100 percent of their pensions and pay very little for health care. I not only continue to pay for my rising costs, but I also pay for the public union workers' benefits.
The union often points out the rich as getting richer. When it comes to benefits, Wisconsin union workers are the haves and nonunion are the have nots.
Mike DeGarmo, a firefighter from Racine, is in a commercial, asking nonunion workers to support them in their time of turmoil. My question to you, Mike and your union brotherhood, is, where were you when the nonunion members like me were losing pay and benefits?
Where were the commercials, letters to the editor and demonstrations on our behalf? I didn't see you picketing in front of my company.
You claim to agree to pay more for health care and pensions but, while your commercial is running, many school districts and local governments are trying to ram through new contracts. The teachers in your city of Racine are even asking for a pay raise and no benefit reductions.
Wisconsin is broke, taxpayers are at wits' end and teachers are still asking for more and not willing to make serious concessions. Why would I want to support you?
Wisconsin has become ground zero for the national fight to protect the unions and you want 88.1 percent of us to support your cause. What's in it for me? I already have plenty of protections and, until the economy picks up, business owners and governments alike don't have money to hand out.
Collective bargaining means higher costs to cities. That 88.1 percent of us don't negotiate hours, days off and workloads like those that you demand.
Collective bargaining raises taxes and we don't have money to give you anymore.
You're about to find out what reality tastes like.
|Posted by Andrew on February 25, 2011 at 6:12 PM||comments (0)|
For those who believe that Islamic terrorists have just recently decided to wage war against America and other free nations, get ready to be blown away. This short history lesson will show how this battle has been waged since before America’s founding.
Enter the Barbary Powers Conflict, which began during the Revolutionary War, and resulted because four Islamic nations, Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli regularly pirated unarmed civilian and merchant ships of the United States and other countries who they claimed were “Christian” (meaning it was the state established religion) nations. This placed the young United States in a precarious situation since they still had no warships. Prior to the Revolutionary War, U.S. ships were protected by the British Navy and during the war they found safety on the seas courtesy of the French.With the Revolutionary War over and no naval force, the Barbary Powers would capture U.S. civilians and seamen, selling the men into slavery and looting their merchandise. 
As a result of these incessant senseless attacks, and due to the fact that the U.S. has no Navy or standing Army, the Congress, in 1784, commissioned John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to speak with the Islamic terrorists.  Adams and Jefferson questioned the Ambassador from Tripoli and asked him why they were maliciously attacking the United States. They recorded:
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. 
A successful treaty was established with Morocco in 1786, but the other three nations continued pirating due to the admitted religious incentive to create war.  The U.S. followed a strategy of appeasement, and despite negotiating many treaties, as well as paying up to twenty percent of the federal budget in of tribute (official extortion) , the terrorism continued. When Thomas Jefferson became President he rejected the failed policy of appeasement and stopped making extortion payments. This prompted Tripoli to officially declare war on the U.S. in 1801, the first official war for the fledgling nation.  Congress authorized President Jefferson to send armed vessels and a battle ensued until 1805, after which a peace treaty ended the First Barbary War
However, by 1807, Algiers was pirating once again, and because Jefferson and the nation was focused on the preliminaries to the War of 1812, the U.S. couldn’t respond until 1815. After the war with Britain, President Madison sent warships and the military against Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. The American fleet defeated Algiers, but while a peace treaty was ratified in July 1815, Algiers revoked the treaty once the U.S. fleet left for Tunis. Only after the warships of Great Britain and the Netherlands descended upon Algiers did they sign a new peace treaty.  Finally, after thirty-two years of conflict America’s First War on Terror was over.
There are significant lessons to be learned from the Founding Fathers, even on the subject of terrorism. From the very beginning of its inception, Islam has flourished at the hand of the sword. That trend continued during the founding, and still exists today. As a result of this, with the Muslims who believe in the jihad of Islam, appeasement does not work. Jefferson was right, force will be necessary to repel the forces which intend to enslave and subvert. He wrote, “I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace through the medium of war.” 
|Posted by Adam on February 25, 2011 at 5:03 PM||comments (0)|
This was in an email thread I received today. Speaks wonders!
After reading this, you will probably want to perform the same math on
This makes the point even more clearly than before...
Biting the bullet on expenses
The President ordered the cabinet to cut a whopping $100 million from the
$3.5 trillion federal budget!
I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same
thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2000 a month on groceries,
medicine, bills, etc, but it's time to get out the budget cutting ax, go
line by line through my expenses, and go to work.
I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same percentage which will be
0.00002858 of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like
instead of spending $2000 a month; I'm going to have to cut that number by
Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice
is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries.
Having a President with such knowledge and acumen just "sends a tingle down my leg."
|Posted by Adam on February 24, 2011 at 3:34 PM||comments (0)|
The recent events in Wisconsin and elsewhere in several states have brought to the forefront a crucial battle: public vs. private sector workers. Fortunately, it’s a battle that is easily won, as long as we stick to our principles as common sense, logical conservatives.
Since the Republican tsunami of victories last November, several local and state governments have been finally cracking down on the mal abuse of over taxation and spending on the part of politicians. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin recently proposed a modest bill that would simply take away collective bargaining rights for public employee unions, as well as makes them contribute 6.8% to their own retirement pensions, and 12.6% to their own health care plans, which is still below what most private sector employees contribute. So what’s the big uproar about?
Scott Walker is not ‘attacking’ unions. He’s simply limiting their power and leverage against the common taxpayer. He’s not ‘attacking’ working, or middle-class Americans, but instead sticking up for them, in a battle that would not have been able to be won otherwise. Quite frankly, the public employee union has been feeding at the trough of excessive government spending at the expense of the hard-working taxpayer for far too long. And like a drug addict, the union is now up in arms over a threat to this ‘drug.’
So what do the Senate Democrats do instead of debating and voting on the bill? They flee to a different state, in hopes of stalling the vote. This obviously isn’t why the voters of Wisconsin elected them. But there is one crucial point I still struggle with. Why do pro-union protestors scream “Democracy!” during their marches? Is that not exactly what the Senate Democrats of Wisconsin are fleeing from?
Folks, what we see in Wisconsin is just a microcosm of what we will see in the near future all across the country. What we need is less spending, which includes cutting the salaries and benefits of all government employees. Yes, this includes teachers, who so loudly shout “It’s for the students!” yet, without hesitation, are willing to walk out on the job via illegal strike leaving students in the classrooms without a teacher; all so they can protect their own benefits.
Get ready everyone. Hold on to your wallets. And most importantly, pray for truth, morality, and justice to reign in our nation once again.
|Posted by Andrew on February 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM||comments (0)|
In a recent study by the researchers at Conservatism Lives and the Foundation for Liberty, it has been uncovered that educators make up 91.2% of the 1,000 highest paid Minnesota State Employees.
Of the 1,000 highest paid, 823 of those individuals work as University of Minnesota faculty and administrators.
Another 89 individuals work in the Minnesota State College and University System (MNSCU).
Finally, only 88 of those 1,000 individuals work in essential government services, such as the Hennepin County Examiner and State Supreme Court Justices.
The purpose of the study was not to demean or chastise teachers, but rather to investigate who in government is compensated the highest. As we found, it is the taxpayer subsidized higher education professionals who are compensated extremely well.
Another study in progress is regarding the specific compensation levels of these individuals and will be released at the end of February 2011.
Research was conducted based upon Minnesota State data obtained via the Pioneer Press.
For more information on this study please contact:
Andrew at Foundation4liberty@yahoo.com
|Posted by Andrew on February 16, 2011 at 5:16 PM||comments (1)|
For the past three years the American people have heard constantly about how government can create jobs. Sadly, we have learned once again how this pillar of Keynesianism is a complete fallacy. Despite nearly $4 Trillion being added to the national debt in just three years, unemployment is now over 3 percent higher than it was at the beginning of 2008. Remember, real unemployment is still around 16 percent because it actually considers those who quit looking for work and so forth. This is undeniable evidence that government doesn’t create jobs, but instead trumpets a false hope of growth, leaving the costs in the form of debt, higher taxes, and devalued currency.
However, despite the obvious failure of the “government creates jobs” concept, this whole Keynesian idea is built upon the notion that government has an ever expansive role. We know from Natural Law, the role of government is simple and defined: defend liberty. Under the proper role of government there is equal justice under the law, meaning success isn’t punished, but those who rip others off are. This creates a climate where people are willing to invest and create jobs.
The Constitution is explicit in the powers given to the Federal government and it doesn’t include the power to create meaningless jobs by redistributing wealth or spending money the Treasury does not have. Sure, government might be able to achieve full employment if they hired all the unemployed to carry buckets of sand from the Mojave Desert to beaches in Iowa. But I understand that’s a ridiculous suggestion. How about they hire the unemployed to restore parks that no one visit, upgrade politician’s offices, or build walking paths that go nowhere? Oh yeah, I forgot, they already did that. Remember, a real job, in the private sector, represents value creation, and government-make work jobs always consume more value than they produce.
The big government statists are so desperate that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski now says that Net Neutrality Regulation would “create jobs.” Big government creates jobs? Sure, jobs will be created in the bureaucracy and government favored companies will benefit, but will anyone remember those who lose their jobs or notice the unseen consequences of giving over more power to the government? Oh wait, yes we’ll remember them. We’ll make sure they get their Welfare.